Revenue authorities must process mutation applications based solely on possession, without assessing prior ownership documents.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner states that he is the owner of an extent of 7.01 Ares of land in Re. Sy. No. 9/2 of Edappally North Village purchased as per Ext.P2 sale deed from one Greeshla. Smt. Greeshla was also having possession of 3.61 Ares of land in Re. Sy. No. 9/3 of the same village and the said land was also handed over to the petitioner along with the property conveyed by Ext. P2. The entire extent of 10.62 Ares, ie., 7.01 Ares of land in Re. Sy. No. 9/2 and 3.61 Ares in Re. Sy. No. 9/3 was mutated in the name of the petitioner and was assigned with thandaper account No. 14598 of Edappally North Village as per Ext. P3 'thandeper kanakku' and Exts. P4 and P5 thandaper accounts. Ext. P6 is the basic tax receipt showing payment of land tax in respect of the aforesaid properties.

2. The petitioner transferred 3.61 Ares of land in Re. Sy. No. 9/3 and 2.89 Ares of land in Re. Sy. No. 9/2 in favour of his wife Smt. Silja Jose as per Ext. P7 settlement deed. The petitioner also transferred the balance extent of 4.12 Ares in Re. Sy. No. 9/2 in favour of Smt. Silja Jose as per Ext. P8 settlement deed. Thus, as per Exts. P7 and P8 settlement deeds, the petitioner had transferred the entire extent of 10.62 Ares in favour of his wife.

3. The petitioner and his wife submitted application in Form No. 1 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 before the 2nd respondent, the Village Officer for effecting mutation of the said properties in favour of Smt. Silja Jose in the revenue records. The petitioner states that the respondents have not effected mutation on the ground that the extent of 3.61 Ares of land in Re. Sy. No. 9/3 conveyed to Smt.

Silja Jose as per Ext. P7 is not included in the prior deed, i.e, Ext. P2.

4. The petitioner states that, as per Section 3 of the Land tax Act, 1961, he is the 'land holder' in respect of the properties sought to be mutated. It is further stated that he is in possession of the extent of 3.61 Ares of land in Re. Sy. No. 9/3 and the respondents cannot refuse mutation of property by insisting on prior title deed. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition for direction to the respondents to effect mutation of the properties covered by Exts. P7 and P8.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, the Tahsildar, stating that the 3.61 Ares of land in Re. Sy. No. 9/3 transferred as per Ext. P7 settlement deed is not included in Ext. P2 prior deed and the petitioner has no right over the said extent of land and accordingly, the application for effecting mutation of the properties covered by Ext. P7 settlement deed was rejected vide letter No. S2- 10141/22 dated 12.10.2022.

6. Heard Sri. Ranjith Thampan, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Deepa Narayanan, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the respondents.

7. Sri. Ranjith Thampan would contend that when there is no objection raised by any third party in effecting mutation, the respondents ought to have passed orders on the application with dispatch without any further enquiry, following the procedure stipulated under Rule 10 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 . Sri. Ranjith, referring to the decisions of this Court inSynudheen v. State of Kerala [2013 (1) KLT 221] and Vijayalakshmi v. Tahsildar [ 2019 (2) KLT 373 ], contends that, for the purpose of effecting mutation, the Village Officer cannot look into the derivation of title of the vendor. It is contended that the respondents cannot refuse mutation on the ground that prior title deed of the property is not produced.

8. Smt. Deepa would contend that the petitioner has not produced any valid document to prove his right over the 3.61 Ares of land in Re. Sy. No. 9/3. Referring to the averments in the counter affidavit, Smt.Deepa submits that the writ petition has to be dismissed.

9. InSynudheen (supra), this Court has held that the Tahsildar cannot sit in appeal over or decide on the validity of a document while effecting mutation under the Transfer of Re