JUDGMENT : SHAJI P. CHALY, J. The appellant, who was the writ petitioner, challenges the judgment of the learned single judge dated 23.03.2020 in W.P.(C) No. 3647 of 2020, whereby the first respondent, the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk, was directed to take a decision in the application submitted by the appellant to effect mutation of an extent of 0.45 Ares of property in Survey No. 2549/1 of Ernakulam Village in the light of Ext.P1 sale deed dated 22.05.2017, after advertence to the objection of the appellant with regard to the report submitted by the Village Officer, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details facts required for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows: According to the appellant, he became the owner in possession and enjoyment of a property having an extent of 1.82 Ares situated in Survey No. 2549/1 of Ernakulam Village by virtue of the sale deed No.1838/2017 of the Office of the Sub Registrar, Ernakulam. On registration of Ext.P1 sale deed, appellant submitted Ext.P3 application dated 28.10.2017 for effecting mutation, and issuance of the possession certificate, along with the required documents, before the second respondent i.e., the Village Officer, Ernakulam Village. The case projected by the appellant is that even though the second respondent deputed an officer to inspect the property on the same day, the Village Officer refused to accept the application stating that the appellant has not produced a purchase certificate as per the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Thereupon, the appellant forwarded the application along with the required documents and covering letter dated 18.11.2017 by registered post to the second respondent Village Officer and he has received the same. Fact remains, the Village Officer, as per his letter dated 08.12.2017, refused to entertain the application for want of certificate enclosing Jenmam rights and on the contrary, directed the appellant to approach the Land Tribunal and obtain the same. While so, the appellant has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 4284 of 2019, and as per Ext.P4 judgment, the writ petition was allowed holding that the refusal on the part of the Village Officer to mutate the property and failure to accept the basic land tax from the appellant is illegal and ultra vires. While so, the appellant has approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 4284 of 2019, and as per Ext.P4 judgment, the writ petition was allowed holding that the refusal on the part of the Village Officer to mutate the property and failure to accept the basic land tax from the appellant is illegal and ultra vires. Accordingly, it was ordered that the second respondent will immediately take up the request made by the appellant in Ext.P3 application dated 28.10.2017 and consider the request for granting mutation, transfer of registry, and acceptance of the basic land tax in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. It was further directed to issue a possession certificate within two weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of the judgment, if the application was in order otherwise. It was also made clear and ordered that the second respondent Village Officer cannot refuse those requests on the ground that the appellant has not produced the purchase certificate of the subject property. Anyhow, the village officer after considering the application, granted mutation only to an extent of 1.37 ares of property, in spite of the appellant filing an objection to an intervening communication so issued by the Village Officer. 3. Even though the appellant has preferred CO(C) No. 1659 of 2019 for violation of the directions contained in Exhibit P4 judgment by the Village Officer, the contempt case was closed as per Ext.P8 judgment dated 08.11.2019 holding that the issues involved are not capable of consideration in a contempt of court case proceedings. However, the liberty of the appellant to take appropriate action was left open. It was accordingly that the writ petition leading to this appeal was preferred by the appellant, basically submitting that the Village Officer has no authority to refuse mutation for a part of the property overlooking the extent of property conveyed in Exhibit P1 sale deed. 4. However, the liberty of the appellant to take appropriate action was left open. It was accordingly that the writ petition leading to this appeal was preferred by the appellant, basically submitting that the Village Officer has no authority to refuse mutation for a part of the property overlooking the extent of property conveyed in Exhibit P1 sale deed. 4. The predominant ground raised by the appellant is that as per Rule 28 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966 ('Rule, 1966' for brevity), even if the parties approaching the revenue authorities seeking mutation have no document of title, the revenue authorities are vested with powers to conduct a summary enquiry so as to identify as to whether the applicant was in continuous and uninterrupted possession as a reputed owner for 12 years or more and effect transfer of registry. Therefore, it is contended that the Village Officer, instead of exercising the powers so conferred and as directed by the learned single Judge in the earlier round of litigation, has addressed the appellant to produce the prior documents with respect to the excess land covered in Ext.P1 sale deed so as to effect mutation of the property. Be that as it may, after hearing the appellant, Ext.P11 order was passed by the Village Officer holding that the property admeasuring 0.45 Ares covered in the application dated 16.12.2019 is seen to have come into the possession of the appellant only on 22.05.2017 and therefore, the appellant is not having the uninterrupted possession for 12 years, and accordingly, the application was forwarded to the Tahsildar Kanayannur Taluk i.e., the first respondent, for more scrutiny and further action as per letter No.26/2020 dated 06.01.2020. 5. Therefore, it is contented that the learned single Judge failed to take into account the directions contained in Ext.P4 judgment rendered by the learned single Judge in the earlier round of litigation, which was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1397 of 2019 dated 18.06.2019, evident from Ext.P5. It is also pointed out that since a direction was issued by the learned single Judge to the Village Officer, he was duty bound to take a final decision, and the action on the part of the Village Officer referring the matter to the Tahsildar cannot be sustained under law. It is thus the correctness of the judgment impugned is canvassed. 6. We have heard Adv. It is thus the correctness of the judgment impugned is canvassed. 6. We have heard Adv. Anil S Raj appearing for the appellant and Sri. S. Kannan, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, and perused the pleadings and documents on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Village Officer has failed to understand the true implication of Ext.P4 judgment, and in accordance with the directions contained thereunder, the Village Officer had no other option than to allow the transfer of registry for the entire extent of property as is sought for by the appellant. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that the appellant has failed to produce necessary documents before the Village Officer to establish his title over the property, thus enabling the Village Officer to effect mutation of the property after conducting due enquiry in contemplation of rule 28 of rules 1966. After evaluating the rival submissions made by the respective counsel as above, we are of the considered opinion that a reference to the provisions of Rules, 1966 would make the situation clear, and it would also enable us to arrive at a logical conclusion . 8. Transfer of Registry Rules has come into force on and with effect from 11.10.1966. As per Rule 2, transfer of Revenue Registry take place either :-- (1) by voluntary action of the owners. (2) by virtue of decrees of Civil Courts or by Revenue Sales, or (3) by succession. 9. Rule 3 prescribes the procedure for transfer of registry and they read thus : 3. For effecting the transfer of registry, the following procedure shall be followed:-- (a) Voluntary transfer of title.--(i) In all cases of absolute transfer of title over a land, by sale, partition, gift, agreement etc., the party or parties thereof shall record in the application in Form I appended to these rules, their consent for the transfer of registry of the survey numbers involved in the transfer. A true copy of the document by which the transfer is proposed to be effected, shall be furnished on the reverse of the form. In the case of lengthy documents additional sheets on plain paper may be used in continuation of the form. This application shall be presented to the Registering Officer along with the document to be registered. A true copy of the document by which the transfer is proposed to be effected, shall be furnished on the reverse of the form. In the case of lengthy documents additional sheets on plain paper may be used in continuation of the form. This application shall be presented to the Registering Officer along with the document to be registered. (ii) The copy of the document furnished on the reverse of the application form shall be compared with the original document in the Registry Office and certified as true copy of the Registering Officer. (iii) After the admission of the document for registration, the Registering Officer shall obtain the signature of the transferor and the transferee, (or their agents or representatives) who agree to the transfer of registry on the application form enter necessary particulars in the space provided and attest them by affixing his signature. Whenever any party does not appear for admission of execution, the fact shall be so recorded on this form. Note.--Form of application (Form I can be had from the Registry Office at 15 ps. Each. (iv) A register in Form II shall be maintained in the Registry Office in which the details of applications received for transfer of registry shall be entered giving them consecutive numbers for each calender year. (v) The application for Transfer of Registry with copies of the connected documents shall be given to the applicant by the Registering Officer immediately after registration of the document, so that the applicant may move the Village Officer to effect the transfer of registry. The receipt of the application on the presentation by the party shall be acknowledged by the village officer indicating the serial number of the application year-wise. A fee of Rs.10 shall be levied from the applicant in each case of transfer of registry on proper receipt. (vi) The Registering Officer shall see that the application for transfer of registry are forwarded to the Tahsildar/Village Officer in a complete form. In the villages notified from time to time under the National Land Records Modernisation Programme, the application in Form 1B appended to this Rules should be forwarded online wherever possible for effecting transfer of registry. (vi) The Registering Officer shall see that the application for transfer of registry are forwarded to the Tahsildar/Village Officer in a complete form. In the villages notified from time to time under the National Land Records Modernisation Programme, the application in Form 1B appended to this Rules should be forwarded online wherever possible for effecting transfer of registry. (vii) When the property involved in a transaction is situated in more than one village, as many copies of documents as there are such villages shall be obtained from the parties along with the applications for transfer of registry. (viii) The application for Transfer of Registry where lands are to be described by reference to Government map or survey according to Rule 25 of the Registration Rules (Kerala) received together with copies of the connected documents shall be forwarded by the Registering Officer to the Village Officer concerned fortnightly with an intimation in Form No. IIIA. The receipt of the application shall be acknowledged by the Village Officer in Form No.IIIA within 7 days of the receipt. (b) Transfers by decrees of Civil Courts or Revenue sales.--(1) in respect of decrees or orders of Civil Courts which create any proprietary right over immovable property to the decree holder or revenue sales, when registered under the Registration Act, the Registering Officer shall follow the procedure laid down in Rule 3(a). (ii) Certificates filed under Section 89 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 relating to immovable property whereby the ownership of such property is conveyed or an absolute right over the property is created, shall be prepared in the Registry Office and forwarded to the Revenue authorities concerned for effecting transfer of registry with an explanatory note, after making necessary entries in the Register in Form No. II. (c) Transfer of due succession.-- It shall be the duty of the Village Officer, whenever a pattadar dies, to report the fact to the Tahsildar with the names of the legal heirs so far as can be ascertained. A statement of cases of transfer in which neither party has applied to nor has any application, copy of document etc. been received by the Tahsildar shall also be submitted by the Village Officer to the Tahsildar. A statement of cases of transfer in which neither party has applied to nor has any application, copy of document etc. been received by the Tahsildar shall also be submitted by the Village Officer to the Tahsildar. When these cases are reported to the Tahsildar, necessary entries shall be made in the Register in Form VIA as stated in Rule 7(2) and on receipt back from the Tahsildar they shall be entered in register No.VIB and the entry in Register VIA closed.” 10. The case of the appellant comes under the category of 'voluntary transfer of title' on the basis of the application submitted by the appellant. As per Rule 7, the Village Officer shall prepare a statement in form 'A' and forward the same to the concerned Tahsildar within 15 days of the receipt of the application. As per Rule 8, the Village Officer shall prepare and submit the statement or report under Rule 7 to the Tahsildar within 15 days of the receipt of the application from the party. Rule 9 prescribes that the cases received in the Taluk Office with the report of the Village Officer shall be classified and dealt with in the following manner: (a) Uncontested cases (b) Contested cases (c) Cases involving sub-divisions Rule 10 prescribes that uncontested cases may be of two kinds, which are (1) those which can be disposed of without further enquiry (2) those in which a decision cannot be taken without conducting a further enquiry by the Deputy Tahsildar or Tahsildar. The note( 1) thereto specifies that the cases of sale and other absolute transfer of land mentioned under Rules 3(a) and 3(b) i.e., the transfer of registry by voluntary action of the owners and by virtue of the decrees of civil courts and by revenue sales, will fall under the first category i.e., uncontested cases. In such cases, no enquiry is necessary and they shall be disposed of by the Deputy Tahsildar of the Taluk. Now, the question is whether the application of the appellant could have been considered as one under the uncontested cases by the Village Officer. In order to resolve that issue a reference to the following provisions would be required. 11. Note (ii) of Rule 10 is relevant to the context and it reads thus: “Note.--The cases coming under the second category are transfers due to inheritance acquisition of title by adverse possession etc. In order to resolve that issue a reference to the following provisions would be required. 11. Note (ii) of Rule 10 is relevant to the context and it reads thus: “Note.--The cases coming under the second category are transfers due to inheritance acquisition of title by adverse possession etc. for which the parties might have applied under Rule 4. Most of such cases are usually uncontested but in all such cases notices should be issued to the parties interested, if any, inviting objections, to the transfer of registry. The objection should be preferred within 15 days of the service of the notice. Copies of the notice shall also be published on the Notice Board of the concerned Village, Panchayat and Taluk Offices. Such cases shall also be disposed of by Deputy Tahsildar on merits, after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard. A Revenue Inspector after making personal enquiry in the village where the land situated may dispose of such of the petitions, presented to him and also such of the cases of transfer ascertained by him as do not involve the formation of new subdivisions and about which there is no dispute.” 12. But, Rule 11 specifies that all contested cases i.e. the second category specified in note( 11) above shall be enquired into and disposed of by the Tahsildar following the procedure laid down in Note (2) to Rule 10. 13. On a reading of the afore discussed provisions, it is clear that the case of the appellant falls in the classification of 'contested cases', since the property in question excluded from mutation is not having a title document, and due to which an enquiry is to be undertaken as per Rule 28 of the Rules, 1966 dealing with the transfer in favour of person proving title by adverse possession for 12 years or more. That apart, Rule 15 stipulates that with the help of the details furnished in the statement in Form 'A' prepared by the Village Officers and such other information as the Tahsildar may receive from parties and village officials at the time of enquiry regarding the fact of possession and enjoyment, payment of tax and other particulars, the Tahsildar shall determine the person in whose name the transfer of registry shall be made. So much so, Rule 17 empowers the Tahsildar to take up and dispose of any transfer of registry case which under the Rules, 1966 could be disposed of by a Deputy Tahsildar or by a Revenue Inspector and thereafter whatever be the orders in a transfer of registry case, shall be communicated promptly to the Village Officer and to the parties concerned, and shall be given effect to in the Village Accounts and thereafter a patta in the prescribed form under the signature of the Tahsildar, in accordance with the decision, shall be issued to those who apply for it. Rule 28 prescribes the methodology under which the enquiry is to be carried out, which is relevant to the context and which reads thus: “28. Transfer in favour of person proving title by adverse possession for 12 years or more.--Where parties who have no documents of title are shown in a summary enquiry to have been in actual, continuous and uninterrupted possession as reputed owners for 12 years or more transfer of registry may made after notice etc. as provided in Note (ii) to Rule 10. The action contemplated in this paragraph may be taken by the revenue officers either on their own motion or on the applications presented by the parties concerned.” 14. Therefore, on a conjoint reading of the above provisions, it is clear that the enquiry in accordance with Rule, 1966 is to be conducted by the Tahsildar concerned and then communicate the order to the Village Officer for necessary consequential action in the village records. Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Village Officer should have decided the matter without making a reference to the Tahsildar, cannot be sustained under law. Even though a contention is advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the earlier round of litigation, the learned single Judge has directed the Village Officer to take a decision in the application submitted by the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the Village Officer while considering the application has to undergo the formalities prescribed under Rules, 1966. We have also pointed out that the case projected by the appellant will come under the category of 'contested cases' in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 1966 and it is for the Tahsildar to carry out the enquiry taking into account all the inputs. We have also pointed out that the case projected by the appellant will come under the category of 'contested cases' in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 1966 and it is for the Tahsildar to carry out the enquiry taking into account all the inputs. However, we do find force in the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the appellant in respect of the insistence for the production of the purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, since Rule 28 extracted above would make it clear that even without the production of any documentary proof for the property in question, the possession can be ascertained and necessary steps can be taken to effect mutation of the property. In this regard, Rule 16 of rules 1966 is relevant, which reads thus: “16. The summary enquiry and decision thereon is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes and does not affect the legal rights of any person in respect of the lands covered by the decisions in transfer of registry cases. The question of legal rights is always subject to adjudication by Civil Courts and pattas will be revised from time to time in accordance with judicial decisions.” That said, rule 16 makes it clear that, interest of a third party is well protected and mere transfer of registry will not confer any absolute title to the appellant. 15. That apart, so far as the issue with respect to the purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal is concerned, the same has concluded in Ext.P4 judgment in the earlier round of litigation, since it was clearly stated therein that the Village Officer cannot refuse the request of the appellant on the ground of non-production of purchase certificate for the subject property. 16. In that view of the matter, we do not think that any interference is requisite in the judgment of the learned single Judge, since there is no error of law requiring interference in an appeal preferred under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act. 17. Considering all the above aspects, we are of the view that the writ appeal can be disposed of by making suitable clarification to the judgment of the learned single judge. 17. Considering all the above aspects, we are of the view that the writ appeal can be disposed of by making suitable clarification to the judgment of the learned single judge. Therefore, the first respondent i.e., the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk, is directed to comply with the directions contained in the judgment of the learned single Judge taking into account the contentions put forth by the appellant, however, without insisting for the purchase certificate issued by the Land Tribunal under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, at the earliest possible and at any rate within the time period fixed by the learned single Judge, however, making it clear that any decision taken would be subject to any third party claims. In the result, this writ appeal is disposed of.