C.M.MUSTAFFA Vs. ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to issue Record of Rights to the petitioner in respect of the properties owned by him and covered under Ext.P1 tax receipt or in the alternative, for a direction to the 3rd respondent to register the sale deeds to be executed by the petitioner without insisting for the production of RoR certificate.

(2.) The petitioner contends that he is the absolute owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 1 hectares 97 Ares and 91 square meters comprised in various survey numbers at Kottapady Village. Ext.P1 is the tax receipt evidencing the payment of tax in respect of the property owned by him. He was issued with a permit by the District Geologist for quarrying granite. Alleging violation of the quarrying permit and for quarrying outside the area, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. It is contended that the matter reached the Government and by order dated 11.4.2018 a joint inspection was ordered by the officers of the Revenue, Forest and Geology Departments. He contends that the joint inspection as ordered has not taken place. Later, when crimes were registered against the petitioner by the Forest Department, he approached this Court and filed a writ petition seeking a direction to expedite the joint inspection as ordered by the Government by Ext.P3 order. This Court, by Ext.P4 judgment dated 09.01.2019, directed the District Collector, Ernakulam to ensure that the entire process of joint inspection was carried out with notice to the petitioner and to conclude the same within a period of five months. According to the petitioner, though more than two years have elapsed, no notice has been issued to him as ordered by this Court. He contends that he is now in dire financial straits and intends to dispose of the property owned by him. In the said circumstances, he approached the revenue authorities and applied for issuance of Record of Rights (RoR) certificate from the Village Officer. His grievance is that the 2nd respondent refused to issue Record of Rights on the ground that the District Geologist, Ernakulam had issued a demand notice claiming certain amounts from the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved, he has approached this court seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) I have heard Sri. Shaji Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Bimal K. Nath, the learned Senior Government Pleader.