KAMBRATH MEENA RAVI Vs. VILLAGE OFFICER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

(2.) Heard Sri. Zubair Pulikool, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The petitioner is deeply aggrieved by the impugned decision of the 1st respondent Village Officer rendered as per Ext.P5 dated 29.6.2018, whereby he had refused to grant mutation and transfer of registry in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property she had purchased as per Ext.P1 registered deed No.1771/2004 dated 14.7.2004 of SRO, Mathamangalam on the ground that her uncle is now cultivating the said property etc. Her father's brother is undertaking cultivation in the said subject property. The petitioner had purchased landed property having an extent of 20 cents (8.09 ares) in resurvey No.81/3 of Kadannappally Village, Kannur Taluk, Kannur Revenue District on the basis of Ext.P1 registered sale deed No.1771/2004 dated 14.7.2004 of SRO, Mathamangalam. The petitioner is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the said property which is under her title. The petitioner had paid fee for transfer of registry on 27.7.2004 as evident from Ext.P2 receipt before the 1st respondent Village Officer for carrying out mutation of the said property consequent to the registration of Ext.P1 deed. Since she was out of station with her husband in connection with job of her husband, she was not in a position to make arrangements for payment of basic land tax. The petitioner has now approached the 1st respondent Village Officer for several occasions for effectuating the process of mutation and for acceptance of basic land tax in respect of the subject property covered by Ext.P1. Ext.P3 is the petition dated 16.6.2018 filed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. Ext.P4 is the encumbrance certificate issued in respect of the subject property covered by Ext.P1, which unequivocally shows that the subject property covered by Ext.P1 is now under the title and possession of the petitioner consequent to Ext.P1 registered sale deed. The 1st respondent Village Officer now takes the very curious stand in the impugned Ext.P5 order dated 29.6.2018 that he would refuse to grant mutation and to accept basic land tax in respect of the subject property covered by Ext.P1 on the ground that he has now been informed that the father of the petitioner's brother is undertaking cultivation in the said subject property. Ext.P5 order dated 29.6.2018 makes interesting reading and it would be more approximate to quote the entire text of that order for the sake of clarity and the same reads as follows: