Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4645
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Sathish Ninan, J
ELSTONE TEA ESTATES LTD – Appellant
Versus
VILLAGE OFFICER – Respondent
WP(C)/23679/2020
K.M.MOIDEENKUNHI, K.M.ANEESH, K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM), ADARSH KUMAR, DILEEP CHANDRAN, SHASHANK DEVAN
Authorities must provide notice and an opportunity for hearing before altering property records, ensuring due process is upheld.
Headnote:
Notice - Property Rights - Act Section List - The court underscored the obligation of authorities to provide notice before altering property records, emphasizing the right to a fair hearing in administrative actions involving property interests.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a correction in their Thandapper account regarding property ownership, which was modified without notice, resulting in a reduction of the property extent initially recorded.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to notice before alterations were made to their property records in the Thandapper account.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before property records are altered, as the petitioner was not informed about the claims made by third parties.
Final Decision: The court ordered that the petitioner's complaint regarding the registry corrections be considered with due notice to all parties involved.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by the correction/reduction made in their Thandapper account regarding the extent of the property owned, without notice.
2. Heard the learned counsel and perused the pleadings.
3. Documents have been produced before this Court to show that till the year 2017-18, the petitioner was paying tax for an extent of 75.2205 Hectares of property in Re.Sy.No.88/1/1 and that the said extent was included in the Thandapper account and the Basic Tax Register. Thereafter the extent of property is seen reduced. The petitioner did not have any notice regarding any such correction.
4. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated that the corrections have been made consequent on the request of third parties claiming right over portions of the property on the basis of registered documents.
5. If any request was received for correction in the registry/Thandapper account, it was incumbent on the authorities to have put the petitioner on notice and afforded an opportunity of hearing. Entries in the Thandapper account of the petitioner should not have been modified and certain extent transferred to the account of some other claimants, without putting the petitioner on notice. The rival claimants are not before this Court. I am of the opinion that it would be sufficient if the second respondent considers the issue and passes appropriate orders with due notice to the parties.
6. Accordingly it is ordered that, in the event of the petitioner submitting a petition before the second respondent complaining about the corrections made in the registry as regards the extent of property held, the same shall be considered by the second respondent and appropriate orders passed with due notice to the rival claimants, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23679/2020 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.686/1978 OF KALPETTA SRO EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.687/1978 OF KALPETTA SRO EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 8.12.2017 FOR THE YEAR 2017-2018 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED
14.03.2018 -----
