IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 5337 OF 2016
PETITIONERS:
1 P.M.SAJEEV
AGED 53 YEARS
POOSSERY HOUSE,
CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8
2 P.A.VIJAYAKUMAR
POOSSERY HOUSE,
CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8
3 P.R.PRASAD
POOSSERY HOUSE,
CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8
4 P.K.SANTHAKUMARI
VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,
CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8
5 P.R.BHARATHAN
POOSSERY HOUSE,
CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8
6 P.R.SUNANDA
VADAKKOOT HOUSE,
CHEROOR PO, TRICHUT -8
7 P.M.ANOOP KUMAR
POOSSERY HOUSE,
CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8
8 SMT.DEVAYANI
W/O.ACHUTHAN, POOSSERY HOUSE,
CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8
9 P.K.SUBRAMANIAN
POOSSERY HOUSE,
CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8
10 P.M.VISWAMBHARAN
POOSSERY HOUSE,
CHEROOR P.O, TRICHUR -8
WP(C) NO. 5337 OF 2016
2
11 P.A.KAUSALYA
W/O.SRINIVASAN,
KODAMALOOR HOUSE,
CHEROOR PO, TRICHUR-8.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNANTHANAM (SR.)
SRI.ALEX GEORGE CHAMAPPARAYIL
SRI.THOMAS GEORGE
SRI.TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
TRICHUR 680 003.
2 THE TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, TRICHUR - 680 518.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KILLANNOOR VILLAGE, TRICHUR 680 518.
4 STATE OF KERALA
REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM 695 001.
5 THE TALUK LAND ASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE
REPRESENTED BY THE TAHSILDAR, TRICHUR 680 518.
SMT.C.S. SHEEJA, SR.GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 5337 OF 2016
3
T.R.RAVI, J.
----------------------------------------
WP(C) No.5337 OF 2016
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2022
JUDGMENT
Admit.
Petitioners, who are farmers and the legal representatives of late P.S.Madhavan and late P.S.Raghavan claim to be in possession of about 5 acres of Government land for over 60 years. It is stated that the entire area is planted with rubber. Application for assignment of land had been submitted for which a site inspection was conducted in 2004 and the Village Officer recommended assignment of land in favour of the petitioners. The report of the Village Officer in 2004 itself stated that the petitioners were in possession for over 45 years. The predecessors in interest of the petitioners died and the petitioners had partitioned the properties among themselves and applied for assignment of 48 cents of land to each of them. By Ext.P3, the assignment committee recommended grant of assignment in favour of petitioners 4, 5, WP(C) NO. 5337 OF 2016 4 8, 10 and 11 but rejected the same in the case of petitioners 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9. The petitioners have a grievance that they were not given an opportunity to explain their position prior to the rejection of the applications. It is further submitted that even though by Ext.P3, recommendations were made, no further steps were taken either to grant the 'patta' in favour of the persons to whom it is favorably recommended or to reject the petitions where there was no favorable recommendation for assignment. Even though this Court had directed production of the orders of rejection, what is produced is only the copy of the minutes of the meeting which has already been produced as Ext.P3 along with the writ petition. Ext.P3 is only the recommendations by the committee and it does not show if there has been any rejection. The Government Pleader on instructions submitted that by Ext.P4 the persons whose applications were rejected, were informed about the decision. The petitioners have a case that Ext.P4 was never served on them and it was obtained by them by filing application under Right to Information Act. There is no serious dispute regarding the fact that the petitioners were not heard before their applications were rejected. The fact remains that the WP(C) NO. 5337 OF 2016 5 petitioners and their predecessors were in possession of the lands for the past almost 60 years. In such circumstances, their rights could not have been decided in the manner in which it is seen to have been decided in Ext.P3. The petitioners are necessarily entitled to a fair treatment and their case ought to have been considered after hearing them.
In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;
i) Ext.P3 in so far as it declines the request for patta by the petitioners 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9, is quashed. The 5 th respondent shall reconsider the case of the petitioners 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9 after notice to the petitioners.
ii) There will be a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider the recommendation in favour of the petitioners 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11 contained in Ext.P3 and take further steps for the issuance of patta to petitioners 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11 at the earliest at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
iii) The 5th respondent while considering the claims of petitioners 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9 shall bear in mind the WP(C) NO. 5337 OF 2016 6 fact that they are also claiming similar rights as that of petitioners 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11 to which they had succeeded as legal representatives of deceased P.S.Madhavan and P.S.Raghavan.
iv) Necessary orders shall be issued by the 5 th respondent within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say, the petitioners 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 9 shall be put on notice before a decision is taken by the 5th respondent.
Sd/-
T.R.RAVI JUDGE sn WP(C) NO. 5337 OF 2016 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5337/2016 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 17.12.2004 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES HELD BY LATE P.S.RAGHAVAN EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITONER ON 13.10.2014 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING DATED 19.6.2014 OF THE LAND ASSIGNMENT COMMITTEE EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.7.2014 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15.6.15 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17.6.15 ISSUED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE