NATARAJAN R Vs. VILLAGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's father owned a parcel of land situate in Sy. Nos. 476/1 and 478/1 of Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District. He obtained the said property as per a partition deed dated 23.1.1993. On 3.9.2002 the petitioner's father offered to surrender 2.28 acres of land (228 sq.meters) situate in Sy. No. 478/1 of Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District for widening the Thammanam - Pulleppady road. Three days later, to be exact on 6.9.2002, he submitted an application for a building permit to put up a building in 774.51 sq.meters of land in Sy. Nos. 476/1 and 478/1 of Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District. That application was allowed, a building permit was issued and the petitioner's father constructed a building, which was completed, as revealed by the files produced by the Cochin Corporation, on 15.10.2005. Long after the construction of the building was completed, the petitioner's father executed Ext. P2 settlement deed dated 2.9.2011 settling 2.08 acres of land situated in, Sy. No. 478/1 of Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District on the petitioner, his son. The said land is admittedly part of 2.28 acres of land, which the petitioner's father had offered to surrender, for widening the Thammanam - Pulleppady road. After Ext. P2 settlement deed was executed, the petitioner submitted Ext. P3 application before the Village Officer, Ernakulam for effecting mutation in the revenue records. The Village Officer received the application on 18.11.2011, but declined to act on the application on the ground that the land in respect of which mutation was sought, is land surrendered by the petitioner's father for widening the Thammanam - Pulleppady road. Hence this writ petition for an order directing the Village Officer, Ernakulam to effect mutation in the revenue records in respect of the land settled on the petitioner as per Ext. P2 settlement deed and to accept land tax from him.

(2.) The main contention raised by the petitioner is that though his father had given consent in Form A prescribed in rule 3 of the Kerala Land Relinquishment Rules, 1958 by submitting the original of Ext. P1 application, no order was passed by the competent authority either accepting the relinquishment or rejecting it and therefore, as the land offered to be surrendered did not vest in the Government, his father was competent to settle the properties on him and therefore, he is entitled to have mutation effected in the revenue records.

(3.) The second respondent, Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Cochin, has sworn to a counter affidavit dated 16.1.2012. In paragraph 3 thereof, it is contended that the petitioner's father unconditionally surrendered all his rights over 2.28 acres of land situate in Sy. No. 478/1 of Ernakulam Village, Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District for widening and development of Thammanam - Pulleppady road and that the said parcel of land is required to straighten a curve on the road. It is stated that the petitioner's father had no right to execute any document in respect of the surrendered land in the light of the undertaking given by him in Ext. P1 and that survey and demarcation of the lands required for widening the Thammanam - Pulleppady road is in progress and will be completed within a short time. It is stated that the application submitted by the petitioner to effect mutation in the revenue records cannot be considered as the land surrendered by his predecessor-in-interest is required for widening and development of Thammanam - Pulleppady road.