RANI GOPI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner herein seeking to set aside Ext.P3 order passed by the 2nd respondent on 27.3.2007 as per which the mutation pertaining to property comprised in Re-Survey No.358/20, 21, 22 and 23 which stood in the name of Mani, Thresiamma and Sukumaran was cancelled with a further direction that mutation be effected in the name of a certain P.J.Mary.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner herein that she along with her husband Sri.Gopi are the owners in title and possession of property having an extent of 1.703 cents falling in Re-Survey No.358/2020 in Block No.13 of Maradu Village. The aforesaid property was acquired by the petitioner and her husband on the strength of Ext.P9 deed dated 31.5.2003. It is contended that a residential building bearing Door No.21/79 of the Maradu Municipality is also situated in the said property. She states that she has been remitting land tax in respect of the property as is evident from Exts.P1 and P1(a). She has also been paying property tax to the Local Self Government Institution as is evident from Ext.P1(b).

(3.) The petitioner contends that she wanted to put up a small bathroom for which she was asked to produce the latest land tax receipts. On 5.4.2011, she submitted an application before the District Collector seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to permit her to remit land tax. It was only then that she was informed that Registry of Sy. Nos. 358/20, 21, 22 and 23 had been transferred in the name of Sri. Job, S/o. P.E.Varkey pursuant to Ext.P3 order passed by the District Collector in compliance of the directions issued by this Court vide Ext.P4 judgment. According to the petitioner, the learned Single Judge of this Court, while rendering Ext.P4 judgment, had only directed that Exhibit P4 and P5 communications produced in the said writ petition be brought to its logical conclusion within a time frame. It is contended that Exhibit P4 is a letter issued by the RDO to the petitioner therein and Exhibit P5 is a letter issued by the RDO to the District Survey Superintendent, both of which are dated 24.1.2006. However, there was a further direction to the respondents therein to pass orders only after hearing all concerned which would include the petitioner herein as well. Her grievance is that despite issuance of such directions by this Court, the petitioner was not heard by the 2nd respondent and on that sole ground, Ext.P3 order is liable to be overturned. On receipt of the said communication, the petitioner approached the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam and instituted O.S.No.684/2017 seeking inter alia to declare the proceedings of the District Collector regarding the correction of the Tandaper in the Basic Tax Register in the name of the aforesaid Job is illegal and also for a mandatory injunction commanding the defendants in the said suit to accept tax from the petitioner for the scheduled property from 2006-07 onwards. She would contend that a written statement has been filed by the aforesaid Job before the Munsiff Court, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P8 wherein it is stated in paragraph 6 that though the property was transferred into his name on the strength of a sale deed, the possession was not handed over and later the aforesaid Smt.P.J.Mary had cancelled the sale deed vide deed No.916/2010 dated 31.3.2010. The petitioner would refer to Ext.P2 communication issued to the petitioner by the District Survey Superintendent on 25.5.2017 wherein it is emphatically stated that even on that date, the petitioner was in possession of the property. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs.