Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice C. Jayachandran held that once transfer of registry has been granted on a possession-based footing under Rule 28 of the 1966 transfer-of-registry regime, there is no legal impediment to extending a corresponding transfer to assignees, limited to the extent actually conveyed. The case arose from a complaint of inaction by revenue officials after the assignees sought mutation and acceptance of land tax based on a registered settlement deed transferring a two-third share. The Court directed the Tahsildar (Land Records) to decide the transfer-of-registry application within six weeks.

The petitioners approached the High Court alleging that revenue officials had not acted on their request to effect transfer of registry and accept basic land tax in respect of 18.33 ares of land, after a registered settlement deed conveyed a two-third share in the property in their favour. They asserted long-standing possession through their family and stated that a resurvey error resulted in the relevant thandaper being shown in the names of other persons in the revenue records.

Also Read: S.175(4) BNSS | Magistrates To Seek Superior’s Report Before Ordering Probe Where Alleged Offence Arose During Public Servant’s Duties: Supreme Court

According to the petitioners, an application under Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 was processed, and the Tahsildar allowed transfer of registry in favour of the third petitioner, following which mutation was carried out and land tax was remitted. They relied on the Tahsildar’s proceedings, land tax receipt and thandaper extract as supporting documents.

They further stated that the third petitioner thereafter executed a registered settlement deed assigning a two-third right to the first and second petitioners, but the Village Officer did not mutate the property in their names or accept tax. The petition invoked Rule 28, a Government Order on online transfer of registry, and provisions cited from the Kerala Land Tax Act, 1961, along with Article 226 of the Constitution.

The Court noted the foundational fact that “transfer of registry has already been effected in the name of one Sinumon based on possession only, in terms of Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966.” On the nature of the petitioners’ claim through that transferee, the Court recorded that “the petitioners' claim that the said Sinumon settled his two - third right over the property in favour of the petitioners.” It further stated the limitation attached to such settlement: “whatever possessory rights Sinumon had, alone will stand settled on the petitioners.”

Addressing whether the revenue authorities could decline registry transfer in these circumstances, the Court stated that “there cannot be any impediment in effecting transfer of registry in the name of the petitioners, who are assignees under the said Sinumon.” The Court linked this to the character of the earlier mutation by observing that “Rule 28 speaks of mutation based on possession and that the same is allowed in the case of Sinumon.”

Finally, the Court recorded the extent-based constraint on the requested registry transfer: “the transfer of registry can be only to the extent of the two-third right, which have been settled on the petitioners.”

Also Read: Vembanad Lake Pollution: Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Curb Pollution From Non-Compliant Houseboats

The Court directed: “In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent/Tahsildar (L.R) to take necessary action as per law in the light of the above discussion in the petitioners' application for transfer of registry in respect of the subject property. Let a call in this regard be taken, in accordance with law, at the earliest, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent, for compliance.”

“This Writ Petition will stand disposed of, as above.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Shri. Raj Carolin V., Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri. Ajith Viswanathan, Government Pleader

Case Title: Vahab. M. M and 2 others Versus The Tahsildar- Land Records and another
Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:5736
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 28418 OF 2024
Bench: Justice C. Jayachandran