Revenue officers must adhere to civil court decisions; they cannot adjudicate title disputes decided by the courts.

JUDGMENT

The writ petition has been filed praying to set aside Ext.P9 order issued by the 2nd respondent and for a direction to respondents 1 & 2 not to cancel the registration granted to the petitioner regarding 4.40 Ares of land in Old Survey No.1681/3, Re-survey No.188/19 in Manickal Village, under the Transfer of Registry Rules.

2. The property in question devolved on the petitioner's mother by virtue of the preliminary and final decree in O.S.No.4/1972 of Sub Court, Attingal. As per the decree, the petitioner's mother was entitled to 11 Cents of land in Survey No.1681/3 (Re-Survey 188/19) in Manickal Village. The nature of the property was Sree Pandaravaka property. The petitioner's mother applied under Sections 4 & 8 of the Sree Pandaravaka Lands (Vesting & Enfranchisement) Act, 1971 for the assignment of the proprietary/ownership right over the 11 Cents of land. The Sree Pandaravaka Special Tahsildar issued Ext.P13 patta to the petitioner's mother. The petitioner's mother had been remitting land tax for the land ever since. The petitioner's mother executed a gift deed regarding the said 11 cents of land in favour of the petitioner, and the petitioner has been remitting land tax thereafter.

3. In 1999, the 4th respondent's father, Ahammed Pillai, claiming ownership over the 11 Cents of land, approached this Court by filing O.P.No.11480/1999 seeking Police protection. The Original Petition was dismissed as per Ext.P12 judgment, directing Ahammed Pillai to approach the civil court. Ahammed Pillai, along with his children, filed O.S.No.499/2001 before the Munsiff's Court, Nedumangad, seeking the relief of recovery of possession and declaration of his right over the 11 Cents of land in Survey No.1681/3 against the petitioner and his mother. The Munsiff's Court dismissed the suit, finding that Ahammed Pillai never came into possession of the said land and even if Ahammed Pillai had any right over the land, the same had been lost by adverse possession and limitation. The petitioner's mother had got the property as per the decree in O.S.No.4/1972 . It can be seen from Ext.P1 judgment in O.S.No.499 of 2001 that the suit properties were in the possession of the Court receiver during the pendency of O.S.No.4/1972 and that the partition suit was decreed on 20.8.1990. It is also evident that the properties were put in possession of the petitioner’s mother on 25.9.1992. Sri Ahammed Pillai filed the suit only nine years later. As such, Sri Ahammed Pillai was not in possession of the properties during the pendency of O.S.No.4 of 1972 and thereafter. The judgment and decree in O.S.499/2001 were challenged in A.S.No.68/2005 before the Sub Court, Nedumangad. Pending the appeal, Ahammed Pillai passed away. The appellate court, however, reversed the judgment of the trial court and decreed the suit, finding that it was the defendants in the suit who should have proved adverse possession and limitation. The appellate court failed to consider that the suit was filed seeking recovery of possession 29 years after the execution of O.S.No.4 of 1972 and eleven years after the said suit was decreed. The petitioner challenged the judgment of the appellate court in RSA No.596/2015 before this Court. While the second appeal was pending, the children of Ahammed Pillai and the petitioner entered into a settlement deed, and the children of Ahammed Pillai relinquished all their claims over the 11 Cents of land.

4. The petitioner submits that in 2019, he received a notice from the 2nd respondent Tahsildar, based on an application filed by the 3rd respondent for issuance of thandaper in his favour regarding the 11 Cents of land on the basis of an alleged Sale Deed No.775/1999 executed by Ahammed Pillai in favour of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner appeared before the 2nd respondent and produced the judgments of the civil court which established the rights of the petitioner and his predecessors over the 11 Cents of land. However, the 2nd respondent by Ext.P