Revenue authorities must base mutation decisions and determinations of legal heirship on substantive documentary evidence rather than mere local enquiries; any alteration to register records requires a speaking order and due process.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein is aggrieved by Ext.P7 Order passed by the 3^rd respondent/Village Officer. According to the petitioner, he is the sole owner in possession of 28.5 cents of property situated in Sy.No.231/8-1 of Chittilappilly Village and is the sole legal heir of the deceased Raman. Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the alteration made in the mutation register, wherein the ownership was shown as “Pushpan and others”, instead of recording the petitioner as the sole owner and legal heir of deceased Raman. The petitioner contends that the said correction was effected without notice to him and without properly considering the family membership certificate evidencing that he is the sole legal heir of Raman.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents 1 to

3. Perused the records.

3. The petitioner would submit that the property originally belonged to his grandfather Velappan and, upon his death, devolved upon his children namely Ammu, Kotha, Karthyayani and Raman. According to the petitioner, he subsequently acquired the rights of Ammu, Kotha and Karthyayani through registered documents and that, after the death of Raman, the remaining rights over the property also devolved exclusively upon the petitioner, he being the sole legal heir of Raman. In support of the said contention, the petitioner relies upon the family membership certificate issued from the Chittilappilly Village Office, which is produced at Ext.P1.

4. According to the petitioner, after the death of Raman, mutation was effected in respect of the entire property in the petitioner's name and land tax was also being accepted accordingly by the Village Officer. It is when the petitioner intended to settle the property in favour of his children, he came to know that the mutation register had been altered by the 3^rd respondent and that tax was thereafter being accepted in the name of “Pushpan and others” on the allegation that Raman had other children as well. According to the petitioner, the said alteration was made without issuing any notice to him and without considering the family membership certificate already produced before the authorities.

5. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an application before the 3^rd respondent seeking correction of the mutation entries. However, according to the petitioner, the application was rejected on the ground that he had failed to produce title deeds or a will to establish title. The petitioner subsequently approached the 2^nd respondent seeking correction of the village records, but the request was again rejected on similar grounds. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner challenged the earlier Orders of the concerned authorities before this Hon'ble Court by filing W.P.(C).No.36022 of 2022. This Hon'ble Court set aside the earlier Orders and directed the 3^rd respondent Village Officer to reconsider the matter afresh after hearing all necessary parties and after perusing the documents produced by the petitioner as well as the additional

4^th respondent.

6. The 3^rd respondent pursuant to the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court, conducted a local enquiry and arrived at the conclusion vide Ext.P7 Order that the petitioner is not the only legal heir of deceased Raman. It is the petitioner's case that the 3^rd respondent came to such a conclusion without perusing any documents from the side of the petitioner or the 4^th respondent. It is submitted that the earlier Order had itself been set aside by this Hon'ble Court precisely because the conclusion regarding legal heirship had been