Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala, Single Bench of Justice C. Jayachandran directed the Tahsildar to effect mutation of the petitioner’s property share based on a registered partition deed, stating that the absence of one legal heir as a signatory could not be treated as a reason for refusal. The case concerned a request for mutation of property allotted under a family partition, which was denied by the revenue authorities citing non-participation of a family member. The Court clarified that any grievance of the excluded heir should be addressed through appropriate legal remedies.

Rajendran Ashari R., one of the parties to a registered partition deed (Ext.P3), filed the writ petition seeking mutation of the property allotted to his share. The request for mutation was rejected by the Tahsildar, Varkala, on the ground that one of the legal heirs, Devadasan, had not joined the partition deed. The petitioner contended that Devadasan, his brother, had been estranged from the family but was nonetheless allotted a separate share in Schedule II of the same partition deed. It was argued that the non-joining of one heir could not be used by the revenue authority to deny mutation of another’s allotted share.

Also Read: District Judge Direct Appointment | Eligibility To Be Assessed On Application Date; Breaks In Practice Disqualify 7-Year Mandate, Combined Bar-Judicial Experience Counted — Supreme Court

Pursuant to the Court’s direction, Devadasan was impleaded as additional fourth respondent but did not enter appearance. The Senior Government Pleader, Smt. Deepa Narayanan, representing the State, submitted that the refusal of mutation was based on a complaint filed by Devadasan. Although notices were issued to him on three occasions by the Tahsildar, he failed to appear. The petitioner relied on the partition deed, land tax receipt, family membership certificate, and statutory appeal documents to support his claim.

The central dispute concerned whether the Tahsildar could lawfully refuse mutation merely because one family member had not executed the partition deed. The petitioner maintained that mutation is a fiscal process and that any grievance about the partition itself must be raised through a civil remedy. The case thus turned on the scope of administrative authority in mutation proceedings under land revenue laws.

The Court observed that “the petitioner was directed to implead additional fourth respondent Devadasan and accordingly, he was impleaded. However, there is no representation for the said respondent before this Court.”

It recorded that “although the additional fourth respondent had filed an objection to the mutations sought for by the petitioner, he did not turn up before the second respondent, despite issuance of notice on three occasions.” The Court further noted that “it is based on the complaint preferred by the additional fourth respondent that the mutation was refused in favour of the petitioner.”

On examining the record, the Court stated that “the fact that one among the parties has not joined the partition deed is not a reason to refuse mutation.” It clarified that “if the excluded sharer has got any grievance, it is for him to take appropriate action in terms of law, either to get Ext.P3 partition deed set aside or to seek such other remedies, as advised.”

Also Read: Ill-Treatment of Children by Spouse Constitutes Cruelty under Section 10(1) of the Divorce Act: Kerala High Court Upholds Divorce and Enhances Maintenance

The Court observed that “the petitioner sought for mutation only in respect of the property allotted to his share.” It also recorded that “a share has been allotted and earmarked to the excluded sharer as well, even though the same may not preclude the rights of the excluded sharer to challenge Ext.P3.”

The Court directed that “the mutation sought for by the petitioner has to be allowed.” It ordered that “the second respondent shall effect mutation in respect of the property allotted to the petitioner’s share, in accordance with law, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” It was further directed that “the petitioner will produce a copy of the judgment before the second respondent for compliance.” The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, with the direction to complete mutation proceedings within the specified period.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Shri. Raj Carolin V., Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. Deepa Narayanan, Senior Government Pleader

Case Title: Re The Revenue Divisional Officer & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:73955
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 41687 of 2024
Bench: Justice C. Jayachandran