A long-running land dispute in the heart of Thiruvananthapuram finally found some closure on Wednesday, as the Kerala High Court stepped in to correct what it felt was an unnecessary roadblock created by revenue authorities. Sitting in a packed courtroom, Justice Viju Abraham allowed a writ petition filed by 77-year-old businessman B.K.N. Pillai, restoring his land mutation and directing officials to accept land tax without further delay.
The case, though technical on paper, revolved around a simple issue that affects many landowners - whether revenue officials can refuse mutation even after civil courts have conclusively decided ownership.
Background
The dispute traces its roots back more than five decades. The property, around 20 cents in Vanchiyoor village, originally belonged to one Gourikutty Amma. Pillai’s father, Balakrishna Pillai, had been running a timber business on the land. Litigation followed in the 1970s, with multiple civil suits and appeals criss-crossing courts.
Eventually, the appellate court ruled that Pillai’s father had become the owner through adverse possession - a legal concept where long, uninterrupted occupation ripens into ownership. That finding survived challenges before the High Court and even the Supreme Court.
After Balakrishna Pillai executed a Will in favour of his son, B.K.N. Pillai sought mutation of the land in revenue records. While mutation was initially allowed and tax was accepted, rival claimants - legal heirs of the original owners — succeeded in getting revenue authorities to reverse course, citing a “title dispute” and pending cases challenging the Will.
This pushed Pillai back to the High Court.
Court’s Observations
Justice Viju Abraham was clear that revenue officials had overstepped their limited role. The court noted that civil courts had already given final findings on ownership, and these judgments could not be brushed aside casually.
Read also:- Supreme Court Reserves Verdict on Karnataka Land Acquisition Dispute Involving S.V. Global Mill
“The authorities are bound to effect transfer of registry based on decrees passed by competent civil courts,” the bench observed, pointing to the Transfer of Registry Rules. These rules, the judge explained in simple terms, exist mainly for tax and record-keeping purposes and do not decide ownership disputes finally.
Addressing the argument about the Will being under challenge, the court referred to Rule 16, which allows corrections later if a civil court reaches a different conclusion. In other words, mutation today does not shut the door on anyone’s legal remedies tomorrow.
Read also:- Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Punjab Advocate in Travel Fraud Case, Says Non-Recovery
Decision
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court set aside the revisional order that had stalled the mutation. It restored the earlier order permitting mutation in Pillai’s name and directed that land tax be accepted for the property. The court clarified that if any civil court later rules against Pillai, the revenue records can be modified as per law. With this, the writ petition was disposed of.
Case Title: B.K.N. Pillai @ B.K. Narayana Pillai v. State of Kerala & Others
Case No.: WP(C) No. 11930 of 2022
Case Type: Writ Petition (Civil)
Decision Date: 3 December 2025
