K.M. ABDUL RAHIM @K.M.R.GURU v. STATE OF KERALA

BY ADV SRI.T.K.PANKAJAKSHAN PILLAI SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.15361/2015 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15361 of 2015 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2024. JUDGMENT According to the petitioner, he purchased 18.76 ares of property comprised in Survey No.132/9 of Ayarkunnam Village from the 7th respondent along with

64.14 ares of property comprised in Survey No.132/12 from one Aysha Beevi as per Ext.P1 sale deed. It is the case of the petitioner that mutation was effected and the registry of the property was changed to the name of the petitioner. Subsequently, the 8th respondent filed a complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kottayam, praying for cancelling the mutation of the property in the name of the petitioner alleging that he had purchased an extent of 70 Sq.M comprised in Survey No.132/9 from the W.P.(C) No.15361/2015 4 7th respondent in the year 1987.

2. His case was that he omitted to apply for effecting mutation of the property in his name immediately after the purchase. Even though, the petitioner filed objection, the Revenue Divisional Officer heard the parties and passed Ext.P2 order directing cancellation of mutation effected in the name of the petitioner and for effecting mutation after excluding 70 Sq.M. Subsequently, respondent No.4 approved re-survey plan prepared on the basis of the actual boundaries of the properties comprised in R.S.No.132/9 as per Ext.P3 order, is the submission. Since, the 6th respondent delayed the implementation of Ext.P2, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.17011 of 2013 and this Court directed the 6 th respondent to implement Ext.P2 as per Ext.P4 judgment. Meanwhile, the Additional Tahsildar initiated proceedings purporting to correct the approved re-survey plan, is the submission. The 6th respondent refused W.P.(C) No.15361/2015 5 to collect basic tax from the petitioner, is the further submission. Hence, the petitioner submitted Ext.P5 representation to the District Collector, Kottayam. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with Ext.P6 issued by the 3rd respondent asking him to attend a hearing. The petitioner appeared before the 3rd respondent and pointed out the true state of affairs, is the submission. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned and fresh hearing date is not issued, is his further submission. He submitted that respondent No.3 acting on the dictation of respondent No.2, cancelled Ext.P3.

3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No. 7216 of 2015 before this Court challenging Ext.P6. Notice was issued in that case. He submitted that on 25.2.2015, the petitioner’s counsel appeared before respondent No.3 and informed about the pendency of the writ petition and sought for time. But the petitioner was served with Ext.P7 order cancelling Ext.P3 on the ground W.P.(C) No.15361/2015 6 that the petitioner has not produced any records. Hence, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

1. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction in the nature thereof calling for the records relating to Ext.P7 from respondent No.3 and quash the same.

2. Issue any other writ, order or direction which Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary to grant in the circumstances of the case.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

5. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order. This Court perused Ext.P7 order. In Ext.P7 order, it is stated that even though sufficient time is granted to the petitioner to produce documents to substantiate his case, no evidence is produced. Even in this writ petition, no additional documents or evidence is produced to substantiate the case of the petitioner. It is only stated in the writ petition that since W.P.(C) No.7216 of 2015 W.P.(C) No.15361/2015 7 challenging Ext.P6 is pending before this Court, petitioner sought time. But even in this writ petition, no additional evidence is produced by the petitioner.

6. After going through Ext.P7, I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing survives to interfere with. Moreover, W.P.(C) No.7616 of 2015 is dismissed by this Court today. In that writ petition, Ext.P6 in this case is challenged. Ext.P6 is only a hearing notice and it is stated that a hearing is scheduled on 25.2.2015. Since consequential orders are passed after Ext.P6 as evident by Ext.P7, this Court dismissed W.P.(C) No.7616 of 2015 as infructuous. Moreover, there is nothing survives to interfere with Ext.P7 in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, JUDGE W.P.(C) No.15361/2015 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15361/2015 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS P1:TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 22.06.1996 REGISTERED AS 1384 OF 1996 IN KIDANGOOR SRO P2:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E3 6367/02 DATED 11.02.2008 P3:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER 11/09 DATED 23.03.2009 ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE BASIC TAX ASSESSMENT REGISTER AND APPROVED RE SURVEY PLAN P4:TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.07.2013 IN WPC.NO.17011/2013 P5:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.05.2012 P6:TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C3-33/2012 DATED 21.02.2015 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 P7:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C3-33/2012 DATED 21.03.2015 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3