IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 33095 OF 2018
PETITIONER:
1 P K MAMMIKUTTY, S/O KUTTIYALI HAJI,
POOLAKKAL KAMADOYIL HOUSE, OLAVATTUR P.O, KONDOTTY
TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
2 ADDL.P2. SUBAIDA.P.K., AGED 52 YEARS
W/O. LATE POOLAKKAL KOMADOYIL MAMMIKUTTY, KOMADOYIL
HOUSE, AROOR, OLAVATTUR.P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT-673638.
3 ADDL.P3. NOORJAHAN.P.K., AGED 35 YEARS
D/O. LATE POOLAKKAL KOMADOYIL MAMMIKUTTY, KOMADOYIL
HOUSE, AROOR, OLAVATTUR.P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT-673638.
4 ADDL.P4. SHABEERALI.P.K., AGED 33 YEARS
S/O. LATE POOLAKKAL KOMADOYIL MAMMIKUTTY, KOMADOYIL
HOUSE, AROOR, OLAVATTUR.P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT-673638.
(ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS P2 TO P4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
DATED 5-12-2019 IN I.A.NO.2/2019)
BY ADVS.
P.CHANDRASEKHAR
K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL, CGC
V.A.HARITHA
SIDHARTH B PRASAD
R.NANDAGOPAL
D.SREEKANTH
GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001.
WP(C) NO. 33095 OF 2018
2
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
MALAPPURAM - 676 505.
3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676101.
4 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR,
KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673638.
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
CHERUKAVU VILLAGE,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673637.
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
PULIKKAL VILLAGE,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673637.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SR GP-K.AMMINIKUTTY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 20.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 33095 OF 2018
3
JUDGMENT
Among the various contentions raised and impelled by the petitioners, the primary is that Ext.P11 order was issued based on a report obtained by the Government behind their back, after the hearing of the matter was completed as ordered by this Court earlier.
2. Sri.Muhammed Ravuf, learned counsel for the petitioners, pointed out that, in Ext.P11, it is specifically recorded by the Government that after hearing of his clients was completed, another detailed report was obtained by the District Collector, but that copy of the same was never favoured to his clients, thus he being kept in the dark about all such proceedings. The learned counsel argued vehemently that this amounts to travesty to justice, since the established procedure has been blatantly violated, leading to a complete break down of the principles of natural justice.
3. In response, the learned Government Pleader - Sri.K.M.Faisal, submitted that Ext.P11 specifically records that the first petitioner was given a proper hearing and that, in order to ensure that all the factual inputs were placed on record without error, a report was thereafter obtained from WP(C) NO. 33095 OF 2018 4 the District Collector. He contended that this report of the District Collector was only to complement the proceedings and not to arrogate it in any manner; and therefore, that the contention of the petitioners, that a copy of the same ought to have been served on them before Ext.P11 could have been issued, is without basis. He, therefore, supported Ext.P11, attempting to show me that even on the merits of the matter, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
4. I do not propose to go into the merits of the rival contentions of the parties because, prima facie, I am of the view that Ext.P11 could have been issued only after every report relied upon by the Government was favoured to the petitioners. This is the fundamental pre-requisite of the rule of fair play and the compliance of natural justice. I am persuaded to this view also for the reason that the impugned order itself records that, after the petitioners have been heard, a detailed report was obtained by the District Collector. Since this report does not appear to have been served on the petitioners - it being not so stated in Ext.P11 - I find justification to the argument of Sri.Muhammed Ravuf that his clients have been put to prejudice. WP(C) NO. 33095 OF 2018 5
5. In such circumstances and without entering into the merits of the dialectical contentions of the parties or into the validity of the contents of Ext.P11, I am certain that the entire issue will require to be reconsidered by the Government, after every report relied upon in Ext.P11 is served on the petitioners.
6. Resultantly, I allow this writ petition, thus setting aside Ext.P11; with a consequential direction to the Government to reconsider the matter, after serving copies of all the reports referred to and relied upon in Ext.P11 to the petitioners, which shall be done within a period of one month from today.
7. Once the copies of the reports are so served on the petitioners, the Government will afford a fresh opportunity of being heard to them and to the other affected parties, if any; thus culminating in an apposite final order, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months thereafter.
At this time, Sri.Muhammed Ravuf intervened to say that if his clients find it necessary to file additional pleadings before the Government, based on the reports to be served on them, such opportunity may be reserved. It is needless to WP(C) NO. 33095 OF 2018 6 say that such opportunity is always available to the petitioners and they will be at liberty to do so within the time frames which the competent Authority will afford them, after the reports are made available.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 33095 OF 2018 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33095/2018 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.997/1948.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION 3.7.2014 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H3-10687/14 DATED 2.2.2015 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E-1823/2015 DATED 16.9.2015 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 27.12.2016.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 26.12.2016 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5.55733/15/K.DIS DATED 30.11.2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.2.2018 IN WPC.NO.3338 OF 2018 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 26.3.2018 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT G.O(RT)NO.3833/2018/REV.DATED 13.9.2018.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPIES OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 17-04-2012.
WP(C) NO. 33095 OF 2018 8 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE FOR THE PERIOD 01.01.1948 TO 31.12.1950, DATED 15.06.2015.