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. 8040 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
KALATHIL SHYAMALA,
AGED 65 YEARS
D/O.KUNJHANGHU, KALATHINKUNNU DESOM, KASABA VILLAGE &
P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 002.
BY ADVS.
T.SETHUMADHAVAN (SR.)
PREETHI. P.V.
M.V.BALAGOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR),
KOZHIKODE, COLLECTORATE, PIN-673 020.
2 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALI DEVASWOM,
TALI P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 002.
SMT MABLE C KURIAN SR GP
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. 8040 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is represented by Sri.T.Sethumadhavan - learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Sri.M.V.Balagopal, alleges that Ext.P8 order of the 1st respondent - Deputy Collector is inherently flawed, since said Authority has taken the view that correction of the "Certificate of Purchase" issued in C.P.No.299/78 in O.A.No.8082/1976 cannot be done by him, because he cannot act under Rule 136A of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules ("KLR(T) Rules").
2. I have examined Ext.P8 and, as rightly argued by the learned Senior Counsel, after referring to Rule 136A of the KLR(T) Rules, the respondent goes to say that "I believe that the present case is not attracted" by the said "Rule".
WP(C) NO. 8040 OF 2022 3
3. Smt.Mable.C.Kurian - learned Senior Government Pleader, supported Ext.P8 saying that, for one, the proceedings are of the year 1976; and, for the second, it is not clear as to whether the extent now claimed by the petitioner is available or otherwise. She submitted that, therefore, it will require a proper enquiry, which cannot be done through a summary proceedings under Rule 136A of the KLR(T) Rules. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
4. As I have said above, the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P8 not on the merits of the matter, but saying that he does not "believe" that Rule 136A of the KLR(T) Rules are attracted. However, before he said so, it has unequivocally made the following record in the impugned order:
"I have perused all the
WP(C) NO. 8040 OF 2022
4
documents produced such as
Certified copy of Document
No.582/45, Possession Certificate,
Land Tax Receipt, Sketch, Adangal
copy etc. and the facts of the
case. On verification of the sketch produced it is seen that the property in an irregular shape having three projected triangular area of land on eastern and western side facing sough and east. The difference in the area happened while computing the measurements shown in the document. The Adangal extract of the property shows that the total area of TS No.5-19-912 is 36 Cents in extent and it is also seen that the boundaries are one and the same as in the Document No.582/45 and in the C.P. In the above circumstances the facts stated are correct and genuine and the area in the C.P. has to be corrected from 28¾ to 36 Cents under Rule 136(A) of KLR(T) Rules."
5. It is indubitable that Rule 136A of the KLR(T) Rules empowers the Land Tribunal to WP(C) NO. 8040 OF 2022 5 correct clerical or arithmetic mistakes at any time. The question whether what is involved here is a clerical error or arithmetic mistake has to be first decided and evaluated by the Tribunal, before it could have taken the view that said provision is not attracted.
6. Going by Ext.P8, after assessing the entire factual material and inputs available, the Tribunal has entered a view that certain corrections are required. Whether these are mere corrections, or go to the merit of the matter itself, is not discernible from Ext.P8 and for that reason I cannot find favour with it.
7. In the afore circumstances, I set aside Ext.P8; with a consequential direction to the 1st respondent - Tribunal to reconsider the matter specifically from the angle of Rule 136A of the KLR(T) Rules, thus leading to a decision WP(C) NO. 8040 OF 2022 6 as to whether the mistake in the Purchase Certificate is on account of an error - either clerical or arithmetical - and if so, to make necessary corrections as per law, following due procedure.
8. I make it clear that this Court has not decided the question as to whether the mistakes are clerical or arithmetical and it is left to the Tribunal to properly assess it and then complete consequential action as ordered above.
9. For the afore purpose, I direct the petitioner to mark appearance before the 1st respondent at 11 A.M. on 14.06.2022; on which day, the Tribunal will commence proceedings and complete it without any avoidable delay thereafter.
10. Needless to say, while the afore exercise is completed, the Tribunal will also keep in mind Exts.P9 and P10 judgments of this WP(C) NO. 8040 OF 2022 7 Court, wherein, similar issues were considered and certain directions were issued.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS WP(C) NO. 8040 OF 2022 8 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8040/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF KANAM ASSIGNMENT DEED NO.582/1945 SRO, KOZHIKODE DATED 24.04.1945. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ADANGAL EXTRACT OF SURVEY NO.79/1, TS NO.5-19-912 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KASABA AMSOM DATED NIL. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA DATED 30.09.1977.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO.299/78 ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA DATED 06.02.1978.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.463/2004 SRO KOZHIKODE DATED 24.04.2004.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 12.08.2020.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27.01.2021.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA NO.1/2021 IN OA NO.8082/1976 DATED 18.01.2022. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.10394/2019 DATED 03.04.2019. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.21580/2014 DATED 26.08.2014.