Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20383
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.M. MANOJ, J
K.P.HYRUNNISA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) 15769/2015
Discrimination in processing mutation applications without justifiable reasons violates principles of natural justice and equality before the law.
Headnote:
Mutation - Property Law - Transfer of Registry Rules 1966 - Relevant judgments - The court highlighted discrimination in processing mutation applications and emphasized the interpretation of previous judgments, directing fair reconsideration of the petitioner's application.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought mutation for a property where they constructed a new building after purchasing it, claiming discrimination as other tenants received favorable orders for similar mutations. Previous directives for mutation were ignored, and the application was eventually rejected.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authorities failed to properly consider the relevant legal judgments and showed discrimination against the petitioner by denying their mutation request while approving others in similar situations.
Issues: Whether the rejection of the petitioner's mutation application constituted discrimination and violated principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the failure to effect mutation for the petitioner, despite granting it to others in similar positions, violated the principle of equality under the law, necessitating a re-evaluation of the case.
Final Decision: The court set aside the rejection orders and directed a reconsideration of the mutation application.
(Dated this the 29 th day of July, 2024) This writ petition is preferred by a person to effect mutation for one cent of land. It is stated that description in Exts.P1 and P2 documents are clear as to the extend and building therein. It is also clear from the documents that, the building therein is used as office of her husband. It is further contended that, petitioner’s husband and his predecessors were using the building situated in old survey No.1155 as tenant for more than sixty years. Thereafter, she purchased the property as per Exts.P1 and P2 and demolished the old building and constructed a new building therein.
2. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the 4 th respondent for effecting mutation as per Ext.P3 application dated 23.11.2002. Since there was no positive response, she preferred Ext.P4 application dated 22.06.2007. Ext.P4 application is with respect to 1 cent of property where the old building situated, which is adjacent to other property owned by her. These application was preferred for effecting transfer of Registry. It is further stated that shop rooms were with a common tiled roofing occupied by other tenants.
Those tenants purchased the respective shop rooms and the property attached thereto. Except this petitioner, all other purchasers were obtained favourable orders for effecting mutation as per Transfer of Registry Rules 1966 . In this regard, petitioner further contends that as per Ext.P5 judgment in O.S.No.190/70 of the Munsiff Court Kanjirappaly, there is no puramboke on the southern side of K.K.Road near to this building. On the strength of Ext.P5 judgment, 4th respondent effected mutation to all other tenants except the petitioner.
3.Since there is delay occurred in disposal of Ext.P4 application, the petitioner preferred WPC No.3325/2007 before this Court for a direction to effect transfer of registry in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property where the old building was situated comprised in survey No. 1155 of Chirakadavu village. The said writ petition was disposed as per judgment dated 29.11.2007 directing the respondents to consider the application for mutation in the light of judgment in O.S.No.190/1970 of the Munsiff Court Kanjirapally. However, no action has been taken even after the direction in the judgment.
4.Under such circumstances, the petitioner preferred Contempt of Court Case No. 825 of 2010. It is contended by the petitioner that as a retaliative measure on filing of the contempt petition, the 3rd respondent has rejected the application for mutation as per proceedings dated 25.06.2010 which is produced as Ext.P7. The order was passed without hearing the petitioner in violation of principles of natural justice. Hence the rejection order was challenged in an appeal before the RDO, Kottayam under Rule 18 of Transfer of Registry Rules. However, the appeal was also rejected as per Ext.P10. At the same time the petitioner contends that, as per Ext.P9, other occupants of the said building, who are similarly situated to that of the petitioner, were effected with mutation of their respective properties.
5.In this regard, the petitioner has preferred revision before the District Collector and that was also rejected as per Ext.P11. Hence, seeking for a direction to set aside Exts.P10 and P11 orders passed by RDO Kottayam and the District Collector respectively, this writ petition is filed.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4 th respondent whereby it is stated that this Court directed the Tahsildar, Kanjirappally to consider the mutation application filed by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the cited judgment in WP(C) No.35225/2007. The property to which direction was given by this Court to the Tahsildar Kanjirappally was to consider the application for mutation for the said property which was lying as road puramboke in Revenue Records. The said property is lying in Chirakkadavu Village, Block No. 15
