JUDGMENT

Both these cases have been filed by a person named Smt.Vetti Selvi.

2. Smt.Vetti Selvi alleges that she had entered into an agreement for sale to purchase the property involved in these cases from her predecessor-in-interest Smt.Krishnaveni and has produced the same as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C)No.21209/2018. She asserts that Smt.Krishnaveni is the daughter of Late. Krishnaswami, who was admittedly the owner of the property; and that, after the death of the latter on 28/04/2006, which is evident from Ext.P5 in W.P. (C)No.21209/2018, Smt.Krishnaveni agreed to sell the property to her and that subsequently, a Sale Deed was also executed in the year 2000.

3. The petitioner says that, in the meanwhile, steps were taken by the Vandiperiyar Grama Panchayat, to take back the property from Smt. Krishnaveni on the allegation that she is not the daughter of Late. Krishnaswami and, therefore, that the provisions of the Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”

for short) would apply to it.

4. The petitioner points out that being threatened with dispossession, Smt.Krishnaveni filed Ext.P11 suit, numbered OS No.283/2017 before the Munsiff's Court, Peerumedu, and that she obtained an interim order of injunction, as is clear from Ext.P12. She says that, pending the said suit, she purchased the property based on the agreement between the parties; but that, in spite of this, she has been threatened to be dispossessed from the property by the Vandiperiyar Grama Panchayat.

5. The petitioner contends that the afore alleged action of the Grama Panchayat is egregiously improper, since no proper proceedings under “the Act” had been initiated and completed, either against Smt.Krishnaveni or against herself and, therefore, that she has been constrained to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.21209/2018.

6. Smt. Vetti Selvi, thereafter says that, in spite of the fact that she had obtained a Sale Deed in her favour - which has been produced as Ext.P4 in W.P.C.No 25970/2021 - the competent Revenue Officer refused to grant her permission to remit the land tax thereon, or to effect transfer of Registry of the same in her name. She says that she was, therefore, left without any other option but to file the afore writ petition seeking directions against the said respondent to do so without any further delay. 7. I have heard Sri. Alex M. Scaria - learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the cases; Sri.V.V.Binu – learned Standing Counsel for the Grama Panchayat; and Smt.Surya Binoy – learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

8. Smt.Surya Binoy – learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that the real dispute is between the petitioner and the Grama Pancahyat; and that the Village Officer of the Manjumala Village has only, consequently, refused to accede to the request of the former for transfer of Registry and for remittance of land tax of the property in question. She submitted that, therefore, this Court may not pass any orders against the Village Officer.

9. Sri.V.V.Binu – learned Standing Counsel for the Grama Panchayat, conceded that no order has been produced on record showing how the Grama Panchayat has directed taking over the property from Smt. Krishna Selvi under “the Act”. He, however, added that since Smt. Krishnaveni has not been able to establish that she is the daughter of Late Krishnaswami, apart from producing Ext.P6, which is only a certificate of relationship in W.P. (C)No. 21209/2018, his client was wholly justified in having taken back the said property, because it was originally given to Late Krishnaswami under a beneficial Scheme. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.

10. When I evaluate the afore submissions on the touchstone of the pleadings and materials in both these cases, it is without doubt that Smt.Vetti Selvi claims title under Smt.Krishnaveni, asserting that she is the daughter of Late. Krishnaswami. However, there is nothing on