VIMALA Vs. THE TAHSILDAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the delay on the part of the 1st respondent in considering Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner before the 1st respondent for a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue possession certificate to her, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(2.) THE petitioner alleges that as per Ext.P1 gift deed, some property devolved upon her. Ext.P1 was executed by the 3rd respondent, who is none other than the petitioner's husband. The petitioner remitted land tax and she was issued with a possession certificate. When she again approached the 2nd respondent for a possession certificate, it was refused on the ground that Ext.P1 was revoked by the 3rd respondent. The petitioner alleges that such a revocation is having no legal effect. Therefore, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 request before the 1st respondent seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to issue possession certificate to the petitioner, which also did not evoke any positive response. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

(3.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the State, it was contended that Section 126 of the Transfer of Property Act provides for suspension/revocation of a Settlement Deed; and as such, the mutation affected in favour of the petitioner and the issuance of possession certificate were not proper and correct. According to them, the mutation cannot be effected on the basis of a settlement deed since there is a provision for cancellation/revocation of the same. It was also contended that the revenue officials are not in a position to accept basic tax from the petitioner and the petitioner is not entitled to get a possession certificate in respect of the property in question.