JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 2 and 3 namely, the Tahsildar, Udumbanchola, and the Village Officer, Santhanpara of Idukki District, to effect the transfer of registry of the 1.29.5 Acres of land in survey No.101/1 of Santhanpara Village, give a separate thandaper account by making necessary entries in the records and accept the tax for the said property in the name of the petitioner within a time frame fixed by this Court. 2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the great grandfather of the petitioner, namely, Alagari Naidu purchased 3.89 Acres of land in survey No.101/1 of Santhanpara Village from one Syed Rawther before the year 1950. By Ext.P1 family settlement deed No.2053 of 1957 of SRO, Kottayam, the said property was set apart to the share of petitioner’s grandfather A.A. Ayyali Naidu. Later, in Ext.P2 partition deed No.1140 of 1975 of SRO Udumbanchola, out of the 3.89 Acres, an extent of 1.29.25 acres of land with the building therein was set apart to the share of the petitioner's father A.A. Alagarsami. On the death of the father of the petitioner on 24.03.1999, the property devolved upon the petitioner, his mother and two sisters. The brother of the petitioner predeceased his father, unmarried and issueless. The mother and two sisters of the petitioner executed Ext.P3 release deed No.2425 of 2011 of SRO, Rajakumari, in favour of the petitioner, releasing their right over the property. After Ext.P2 partition deed, the co-owners, including the petitioner, were paying the tax and after Ext.P3 release deed, the petitioner alone paid basic tax to the property. Though the property was parted by Syed Rawther before 1950, and subsequent documents were executed as Exts. P1 to P3, no transfer of registry was effected by giving a separate survey sub-division and a separate Thandaper number to the property, and hence the tax was collected from the petitioner in the name of the original owner, Syed Rawther. Since no steps have been taken by the respondents under the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules 1966, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application dated 31.01.2024 to the Chief Minister of Kerala in his ‘Nava Kerala Yatra’ for effecting mutation in his name. Since no steps have been taken by the respondents under the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules 1966, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 application dated 31.01.2024 to the Chief Minister of Kerala in his ‘Nava Kerala Yatra’ for effecting mutation in his name. Pursuant to Ext.P6, the 3 rd respondent Village Officer, Santhanpara, issued Ext.P7 letter dated 08.02.2024 to the petitioner asking him to produce the documents pertaining to the property. However, the respondents have not so far effected the mutation and gave a separate thandaper to the property. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court with the writ petition. 3. The 2 nd respondent Tahsildar, Udumbanchola filed a counter affidavit dated 02.12.2024, producing therewith Ext.R2(a) document. Paragraphs 2 to 5 of that counter affidavit read thus: “2. It is submitted that the petitioner herein alleges to have obtained property having an extent of 1.29 Acres (0.5231 Hectare) of land comprised in Survey No.101/1 of Santhanpara Village, Udumbanchola Taluk from the legal heirs of late A.A. Alagar Sami by virtue of Release Deed Document No.2425/2011 of SRO Udumbanchola. The petitioner’s father late A.A. Alagar Sami is said to have obtained the property by virtue of partition Deed No.1145/1975. On verification of the Revenue Records, it is found that the said property is comprised in Survey No.101/1 having area of 0.7857 Hectare coming under the Thandaper No.297. A true copy of the relevant page of Thandaper account is produced herewith and marked as Ext.R2(a). But the Thandaper No.297 is in the name of one Periya Thuriyal Syed Rawther S/o. Periya Veeramava Rawther, Uthamapalayam. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner in the above writ petition has contended that the subject property was purchased by his great grandfather Sri. Alagari Naidu in the year 1950. It is further contended that by virtue of Ext. P1 settlement deed,3.89 Acres was set apart to the grandfather of the petitioner Sri. A.A. Ayyoli Naidu. Thereafter, by Ext. P2 about 1.29.25 Acres of land was set apart to the petitioner’s father Sr. A.A Alagar Sami, which ultimately devolved upon the petitioner herein. It is pertinent to note that none of the beneficiaries above mentioned had effected mutation of the properties devolved upon them by Ext. P1 or P2. As such, the subject property is still assigned with thandaper No.297, which is in the name of one Periya Thuriyal Syed Rawther, S/o. Periya Veeramava Rawther. It is pertinent to note that none of the beneficiaries above mentioned had effected mutation of the properties devolved upon them by Ext. P1 or P2. As such, the subject property is still assigned with thandaper No.297, which is in the name of one Periya Thuriyal Syed Rawther, S/o. Periya Veeramava Rawther. The only application received seeking mutation of the property is dated 31.01.2024, preferred by the petitioner. 4. It is submitted that since the Village Officer could not identify the devolution of the subject property from Periya Thuriyal Syed Rawther to the predecessors in interest of the petitioner herein, Ext. P7 was issued requesting production of documents with respect to the subject property. It may be noted that though the petitioner produced Ext.P1, P2 and P3 documents, he failed to make available the document evidencing the purchase of property by the great grandfather of the petitioner herein from Periya Thuriyal Syed Rawther. 5. It is submitted that land tax for the subject property is being accepted for thandaper No.297 in the name of Periya Thuriyal Syed Rawther, including for the year 2024-25. It may also be noted that property for which mutation has been sought by the petitioner has no specific boundaries and as such, survey of the property is also required. It is submitted that the Village Officer is unable to complete the process of effecting mutation with respect to the subject property owing to the above mentioned reasons. In such circumstances, the above writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.” 4. To the counter affidavit filed by the 2 nd respondent, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated 28.06.2025, producing therewith Exts.P8 to P12 documents. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the great grandfather of the petitioner had been in possession of the property even before 1950 and the family of the petitioner executed documents from the year 1957 as evidenced by Exts P1 to P3 documents, the revenue authorities did not effect transfer of registry or gave separate thandaper account in the name of the petitioner. The basic tax was also not accepted in his name without sufficient reasons. 7. The basic tax was also not accepted in his name without sufficient reasons. 7. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the document showing transfer of property from Syed Rawther to the great-grandfather of the petitioner was not produced by the petitioner before the Village Officer. Hence, the Village Officer could not submit a report to the Tahsildar for effecting transfer of registry as provided under Rule3 of the Transfer of Registry Rules 1966. 8. The procedure for effecting transfer of Registry is provided under Rule 3 of the Transfer of Registry Rules 1966 ( ‘rules 1966’ for short). Three types of transfer of title are mentioned in Rule 3. They are (i) voluntary transfer of title, (ii) transfers by decrees of the Civil Courts or revenue sales, and (iii) transfers due to succession. In the case in hand, the petitioner is claiming voluntary transfer of title. Rule 3(a), which deals with the same, reads thus: “ 3(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. (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 by 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. 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 calendar 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 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. (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.” 9. As per Rule 4 of the rules 1966 it is open to any party desiring transfer of registry in cases without sub-division or in any case arising out of succession, which is uncontested, to apply in writing in Form 1A to the Village Officer with attested copies of relevant documents. As per Rule 4 of the rules 1966 it is open to any party desiring transfer of registry in cases without sub-division or in any case arising out of succession, which is uncontested, to apply in writing in Form 1A to the Village Officer with attested copies of relevant documents. All other applications for transfer of registry shall be submitted in writing in Form 1A to the Tahsildar with attested copies of relevant documents. As per Rule 5, the transfer of registry applications received from the Sub-Registry office as per Rule 3(a)(viii) shall be registered in Form No.VI(C) and transfer of registry effected by the Village Officer within 15 days, complying with the rules existing from time to time. If the Transfer of registry cannot be effected, the Village Officer shall communicate the same to the party concerned within one month. As per Rule 6, the transfer of registry cases shall bear consecutive serial number for each calendar year. As per Rule 7, the Village Officer shall prepare a statement in Form ‘A’ and forward it to the concerned Tahsildar within 15 days of the receipt of the application. The transfer of registry cases received for report will be entered in a register in Form VIB. 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 speaks about the cases received in the Taluk office with the report of the Village Officer, and they are classified into three, such as, (i) uncontested cases, (ii) contested cases, and (iii) cases involving sub-divisions. Rule 10 subdivides uncontested cases also into two, that is, those which can be disposed of without further enquiry and those in which a decision cannot be taken without conducting a further enquiry by the Deputy Tahsildar or Tahsildar. As per Note (i) of Rule 10, cases of sale and other absolute transfer of land mentioned under Rule 3(a) and (b) will fall under the 1 st category. In such cases, no enquiry is necessary, and they shall be disposed of by the Deputy Tahsildar of the Taluk. Note (ii) of Rule 10 deals with the cases where the parties might have applied under Rule 4. In such cases, no enquiry is necessary, and they shall be disposed of by the Deputy Tahsildar of the Taluk. Note (ii) of Rule 10 deals with the cases where the parties might have applied under Rule 4. Rule 11 deals with the manner in which the enquiry of the contested cases is to be conducted by the Tahsildar, which says that the procedure laid down in Note (ii) of Rule 10 is to be followed in such cases. Rule 12 deals with cases which involve sub-division of plots. As per Rule 13, as soon as the cases are finally disposed of, necessary entries shall be made in the Taluk register of transfer of registry applications. The general principles to be followed in conducting enquiries in the case for transfer of registry are provided under Rule 14. As per Rule 15, the person in whose name the transfer of registry has to be made is to be decided by the Tahsildar with the help of details furnished in the statement in Form ‘A’ prepared by the Village Officers and further information received from the parties at the time of enquiry. The said Rule reads thus: “15. With the help of the details furnished in the statement in Form 'A' prepared by the Village Officers and such further 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. No case shall be rejected solely for the default of appearance of the parties as it is the immediate concern of the Land Revenue Department to keep the thandaper accounts (Chitta) upto date and bring into it the names of the real land-holders who shall be held liable for the payment of Government revenue due on the land”. 10. Rule 16 of the Rules, 1966, says that the decision taken by the Tahsildar after summary enquiry does not affect the legal rights of any person over the lands. The said Rule 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 said Rule 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”. 11. This Court in Synudheen v. State of Kerala [2013 (1) KHC 437] , by noting Rule 16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, held thus: “The Tahsildar cannot decide on the validity of a document and the title of a previous owner. In fact, under R.16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, it is made clear that mutation effected will not affect the legal right of any true owner. Therefore, as far as the title of the petitioners and the previous owners are concerned, the Tahsildar cannot sit in appeal over the documents itself”. 12. In Vijayalakshmi v. Tahsildar [ 2019 (2) KLT 373 ], by relying on the judgment in Synudheen [ 2013 (1) KHC 437 ] as well as the judgment of the Apex Court in Surney (Sawarni) v. Inder Kaur [ 1996 (6)SCC 223 ] this Court held thus: “As already noted hereinabove, the 1 st respondent Tahsildar as the authority concerned with grant of mutation and Transfer of Registry, has no power to examine such vexed issues of title and therefore he has unnecessarily strayed himself into areas which are totally irrelevant and not germane for the purpose of the enquiry for exercising the powers conferred on him. It has been held by this Court in a catena of decisions as in Sainudheen v. State of Kerala [ 2013 (1) KHC 437 : 2013 (1) KLT 221 : 2013 (1) KLJ 453 ] para 13 that the Tahsildar, as the mutation granting authority, cannot decide on the validity of the documents, and the title of the previous owner and that R.16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules has made the said position abundantly clear. R.16 of the Transfer of Registry Rules mandates that "the summary, enquiry and decision thereon is only an arrangement for fiscal purposes, and it does not affect the title of any person in respect of the lands covered with the decisions in Transfer of Registry cases and the question of legal right is always subject to adjudication by civil courts and pattas could be revised from time to time in accordance with such judicial decisions. It has been held by the Apex Court and various High Courts in various decisions as in Surney (sawarni) v. Inder Kaur [1996 KHC 964 : 1996 (6) SCC 223 : AIR 1996 SC 2823 ] that mutation of property in the revenue records does not create or extinguish title, nor has it any presumptive value on title and it only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. Therefore in cases like the present one, where the registered land holder concerned has transferred the property, then the transferees/assignees will stand in the shoe of the land holder and by the cumulative impact of S.5(2) and S.3(3)(d), the competent revenue officials are under the bounden and statutory obligation to accept basic land tax from them. Otherwise, it will amount to nothing but abdication to statutory obligations and duties of such competent revenue officials, which directly leads to loss of revenue”. 13. Though the petitioner is claiming voluntary transfer of title, the procedure under Rule 3(a) of the Rules 1966 cannot be followed in the instant case, since the transfer was effected much prior to the coming into force of the said Rules. However, the petitioner made a request through the CMO portal for transfer of registry, and the Village officer directed him to produce the necessary documents, probably treating the application as one filed under Rule 4 of the Rules 1966. The petitioner has produced Exts.P1 to P3 documents before this Court, evidencing the transfer of property from the year 1957 onwards. But, according to the respondents, the petitioner did not produce the document that shows change of ownership from Syed Rawther to the great grandfather of the petitioner and hence the Village Officer could not submit the same to the Tahsildar with his report for necessary action. But, according to the respondents, the petitioner did not produce the document that shows change of ownership from Syed Rawther to the great grandfather of the petitioner and hence the Village Officer could not submit the same to the Tahsildar with his report for necessary action. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready to produce all necessary documents before the Village Officer concerned. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition directing the petitioner to produce necessary documents before the 3 rd respondent Village Officer, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the documents are in order, the 3 rd respondent shall forward the same with his report to the 2 nd respondent, Tahsildar within two weeks from the date of receipt of the documents. On receipt of the documents and report, the 2 nd respondent shall conduct necessary enquiry in the matter, in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs of this judgment and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the documents and report from the 3 rd respondent.