Kerala High Court
Jacob Cherian Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017
PETITIONER/S:
1 JACOB CHERIAN THOMAS
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS,MARUTHOOKUNNEL HOUSE,
MARIDOM KARA,KADAPLAMATTOM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL
TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
2 JOHNY CHERIAN THOMAS JOHNY C THOMAS
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.THOMAS, AGED 43 YEARS, MARUTHOOKUNNEL HOUSE,
MARIDOM KARA,KADAPLAMATTOM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL
TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SAJU J PANICKER
KURIAN K JOSE(K/001510/2019)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2 LAND REVENUE COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KOTTAYAM
4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 2
PALA
5 TAHSILDAR
MEENACHIL
6 VILLAGE OFFICER
KIDANGOOR
7 PHILOMINA JOSEPH
KALEKKATTIL HOUSE, KUMMANOOR,KIDANGOOR VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
ADDL.R8 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
KIDANGOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
REPRRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.(IS IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 21.06.2017 IN IA 9213/17)
ADDL.R9 TAHSILDAR (LR), MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM (IS
IMPLEADED IN THIS WRIT PETITION AS PER ORDER DATED
11.04.2024)
BY ADVS.
SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
SAJU J PANICKER
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C.) No. 19367 of 2017
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
(i) "To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to call for all records leading up to Ext.P7 and quash Exts.P6 and P7.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents restraining them from making any corrections in the resurvey or revenue records as to the nature of the properties of the petitioners covered by Ext.P1, based on Exts.P6 and P7.
(iii) To grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of the petitioners." [sic]
2. The petitioners are the owners of the properties covered by Ext.P1 is the submission, which according to them is a garden land. It is submitted that in the survey records and WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 4 revenue records including Ext.P2 basic tax register, it is shown as 'garden land'. It is submitted that based on a petition filed by the 7th respondent, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P7 finding that as per the settlement register, the property is shown as nilam and as per re-survey, it is categorized as 'purayidam', which is a mistake and directed the same to be corrected. Pursuant to Ext.P7, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P6. According to the petitioners, Exts.P6 and P7 are issued without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is further submitted that Exts.P2 to P4 would show that the property in question is a garden land and there are trees having considerable age standing in the property. When there was an attempt to implement Ext.P7, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent.
4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the decision of this Court in Indira P.S. and others v. WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 5 Sub-Collector, Fort Kochi and anr. [2020 (4) KHC 33], the impugned orders are to be set aside. The Government Pleader submitted that the matter is to be considered by the additional 9th respondent.
5. This Court perused Ext.P7. It is true that there is some finding in Ext.P7 against the contention of the petitioners. But, Ext.P7 is only an internal communication between the Revenue Divisional Officer and additional Tahsildar. Untrammelled by the same, the additional 9 th respondent can consider the issue and decide the matter, in accordance with law, in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in Indira P.S.'s case (supra).
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
1) The additional 9th respondent is directed to consider the issue after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 7th respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 6 receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
2) While deciding the matter, the additional 9 th respondent will consider the dictum laid down by this Court in Indira P.S. and others v. Sub-Collector, Fort Kochi and anr.
[2020 (4) KHC 33].
3) I make it clear that the additional 9 th respondent shall consider the matter untrammelled by any direction in Ext.P7 order.
4) The petitioners will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the additional 9th respondent for compliance.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19367/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF PARTITION DEED NO. 1154/09 EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 18.12.2015 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23.02.2016 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19.03.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04.10.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 29.03.2013 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPIES OF LETTER DATED 26.04.2017 WITH PORTIONS OF SETTLEMENT REGISTER RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R7(A) THE COPY OF THE SURVEY SETTLEMENT REGISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS (SURVEY NO. 297/5).
Exhibit R7(B) THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 1770/1955 OF THE SRO, ETTUMANOOR ALONG WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 8 WITH THE TYPED COPY OF THE SAME.
Exhibit R7(C) THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. L.R. A4- 15852/12/LDIS. DATED 4.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER TO THIS RESPONDENT INTIMATING THAT THE RDO HAS DIRECTED THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE THAT OCCURRED IN PREPARING THE RESURVEY RECORDS.
Exhibit R7(D) THE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF THE TAX BY RESPONDENT NO. 7. Exhibit R7(E) THE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 11.11.2014 SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE OTHER NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY OWNERS BEFORE THE RDO, PALA.
Exhibit R7(F) THE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 12.5.2022
SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KIDANGOOR TO THE TALUK OFFICER, MEENACHIL. Exhibit R7(G) THE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 9.6.2022 SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR (LR), MEENACHIL.
Exhibit R7(H) THE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 2.7.2022 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KIDANGOOR TO THE TAHSILDAR (LR).