Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
GOPINATH P, J
RAJENDRAN NAIR – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – Respondent
WP(C) 35688/2017
Mutation - Land - Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 - Cancellation of Mutation
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the orders of the 3rd respondent and 1st respondent cancelling the mutation in his favor in respect of a land covered by Ext.P1 document. The 4th respondent had filed a suit for declaration of title, which was withdrawn, and later approached the Lok Ayukta and the 3rd respondent for cancellation of the mutation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the District Collector had the authority to transfer the appeal filed before the RDO to his own file and dispose of it under Rule 19 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. The court also noted that mutation does not determine title to the property, and the petitioner's claim over the property is that of a co-owner, which the Village Officer did not have the jurisdiction to consider.
Issues: Whether the District Collector had the authority to transfer the appeal filed before the RDO to his own file and dispose of it, and whether the petitioner is entitled to an order setting aside the orders cancelling the mutation.
Ratio Decidendi: Mutation is only for fiscal purposes and does not determine title to the property. The District Collector had the authority to transfer the appeal filed before the RDO to his own file and dispose of it under Rule 19 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966.
Final Decision: The petitioner is not presently entitled to an order setting aside the orders cancelling the mutation, as the petitioner's claim over the property is that of a co-owner, which the Village Officer did not have the jurisdiction to consider. The petitioner can establish his claim before the civil court.
This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P5 order of the 3rd respondent and Ext.P8 order of the 1st respondent cancelling the mutation in favour of the petitioner in respect of the land covered by Ext.P1 document.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the mutation was cancelled on the complaint of the 4th respondent. It is submitted that the 4th respondent filed O.S. No.414/2008 before the Additional Munsiff Court-I, Neyyattinkara. It is submitted that the suit was one for declaration of title and the same was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh suit on the same cause of action on 21-12-2011. It is submitted that thereafter the 4th respondent approached the Lok Ayukta by filing a complaint and the said complaint was also dismissed for non-prosecution by Ext.P4 order. It is submitted that thereafter the 4th respondent approached the 3rd respondent with an application for cancellation of mutation and without any just cause or reason, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P5 order cancelling the mutation in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1
document. It is submitted that though the petitioner filed an appeal as contemplated by the provisions of Rule 18 (1) of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 ('the 1966 Rules') before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO), the said appeal was transmitted to the District Collector who exercises only revisional jurisdiction and the District Collector passed Ext.P8 order upholding the order of the 3rd respondent. It is submitted that since the appeal could be considered only by the RDO and a further revision was available to the District Collector, the petitioner lost one tier of revisional jurisdiction on account of the order passed by the District Collector on Ext.P5
appeal filed before the RDO.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the reasons which compelled the Collector to pass the order cancelling the mutation is set out in Ext.P8 order itself. It is submitted that there is no illegality whatsoever in the Collector transferring to himself the appeal filed before the RDO. Reference is made in this regard to Rule 19 of the 1966 Rules. The learned Government Pleader also submits that the question of possession was also in dispute.
4. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent would submit that the petitioner has filed a suit which is numbered as O.S No.960/2021 before the Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara and the said suit is pending before that court. It is submitted that a copy of the plaint in O.S No.960/2021 is on record as Ext.R4 (e). It is submitted that the dispute between the parties can be settled only through the civil court and the petitioner has already approached the civil court and he cannot approach this court challenging Exts.P5 and P8 orders.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, I am of the view that the petitioner is not presently entitled to an order setting aside of Exts.P5 and P8 orders. Exhibit P8 order of the District Collector contains reasons as to why the mutation granted in favour of the petitioner was cancelled. It is evident from a reading of Ext.P8 that the claim of the petitioner over the property conveyed by Ext.P1 is that of a co-owner. It is stated in Ext.P8 order that the Village Officer did not have the jurisdiction to consider the claim for mutation at the instance of a co-owner who is without the intervention of the other co-owners. That apart, it is seen from Ext.P8 that the boundaries etc of the property conveyed have not been properly identified or set out.
6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Collector had no authority to call for and dispose of the appeal appears to be incorrect in the light of the clear provisions in Rule 19 of the 1966 rules which provided as follows;
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
