Kerala High Court
N.Murukan Master vs District Collector on 11 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 17552 OF 2019
PETITIONER:
N.MURUKAN MASTER,
AGED 69 YEARS
S/O.NARIYA MOOPPAN, DASANNOOR, MATTATHUKADU P.O.,
ATTAPADY, MANNARKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN- 678581.
BY ADVS.
JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
SRI.RUSSEL JOY
RESPONDENTS:
1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
PALAKADU DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION,
PALAKKAD- 678001.
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 679101.
3 N.S.BAYYA,
9/23, SENGUPTHA STREET, RAM NAGAR, COIMBATORE- 09.
BY ADVS.
SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH
SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY
SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.MABLE.C.KURIAN, SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.17552/2019
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.17552 of 2019
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of August, 2021
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P7 order of the
1st respondent. Short facts are like this:
According to the petitioner, he is in possession of 11.4
acres of land as per Ext.P1 M.R.Receipt. There was an attempt
to trespass into the property of the petitioner, who is an
adhivasi and his further case is that, he was evicted from his
property. The petitioner along with others approached the 2 nd
respondent with an application under Section 7(2) of the
Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to
Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999 (for short, the Act 1999). As per
Ext.P2 order, the 2nd respondent dismissed the application.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before
the 1st respondent under Section 7(5) of the Act 1999. The
same is also dismissed as per Ext.P7 order. Aggrieved by the
same, this writ petition is filed.
2. Heard Adv. John Joseph for the petitioner and the
W.P.(C).No.17552/2019
Government Pleader. I also heard Sri.Krishnanunni, the Senior
Counsel, who is instructed to appear for the 3rd respondent.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is an adhivasi. The only document available to the
petitioner to show his title is Ext.P1. The counsel submitted,
from Ext.P1, it is clear that the petitioner is in possession of 11
Acres and 4 cents of property. The petitioner was evicted from
the property at the instance of the 3 rd respondent. The
definite case put forwarded by the petitioner is that there is
collusion between the official respondents and the 3 rd
respondent, which leads to the eviction of the petitioner from
his land. It is the case of the petitioner that he and other
adhivasis were residing in the property for decades. Usually
the adhivasis are illiterate people and they are not aware of
the survey number and other details of the property. The
revenue officials are bound to protect the properties of the
adhivasis. The case put forwarded by the petitioner is that, the
revenue officials colluded with the 3rd respondent, and the
petitioner and other adhivasis were dispossessed from their
property. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that
the 3rd respondent is relying on certain documents to show
W.P.(C).No.17552/2019
that he has got title over the property. The counsel takes me
through Ext.P5, an agreement based on which the 3 rd
respondent says that he has got title. The counsel submitted
that a perusal of Ext.P5 would show that the M.R.Receipt
which leads to Ext.P5 is not produced. According to the
petitioner, the documents produced by the 3 rd respondent in
the counter affidavit are all forged documents and void in the
eye of law. The counsel also stated that the petitioner
submitted a detailed argument notes before the District
Collector before whom the appeal was pending. Ext.P4 is the
argument notes. On a perusal of Ext.P7 order would show
that the appellate authority has not considered any of the
contentions of the petitioner. It is the specific case of the
petitioner that Ext.P7 order is passed without hearing the
petitioner. The counsel also takes me through the documents
produced by the 3rd respondent and submitted that all those
documents are created by the party respondents in collusion
with the official respondents. The counsel submitted that this
Court is the last resort as far as the adhivasis are concerned
and even though it is a petition under Article 226, this Court
may look into the matter in detail.
W.P.(C).No.17552/2019
4. The Senior Counsel appearing for the 3rd
respondent submitted that the original authority and the
appellate authority considered the matter in detail. The
Senior Counsel submitted that the 3 rd respondent filed a
detailed counter affidavit. The Senior Counsel takes me
through the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent.
5. The case of the 3rd respondent is that he is in
ownership and possession of 4.03 hectares of land in Survey
No.353 in Kottathara Village in Palakkad District. His case is
that he purchased the property from one Govindasamy Naidu,
who was a tenant under Moopil Nair, by registered assignment
deed dated 09.01.1964. Ext.R3(a) is the registered assignment
deed. Ext.R3(b) is the land tax receipt dated 02.07.1969.
Ext.R3(c) is the land tax receipt for the period 1969-70, 1970-
71, 1972-73 and 1973-74. Thereafter the 3 rd respondent
obtained certificate of purchase No.2337/1975 from the Land
Tribunal, Puthur. The Village Officer, Kottathara issued
possession certificate to the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent
produced Ext.R3(d), which is the purchase certificate.
Ext.R3(e) is the receipt for payment of land revenue. It is also
stated in the counter affidavit that while the 3 rd respondent
W.P.(C).No.17552/2019
was in possession of the property and cultivating the same, the
Forest Department marked a 'Janda' in the property alleging
that it was a vested forest. Thereafter an application was filed
before the Forest Tribunal, Manjeri as O.A.No.66/1978 and it
was allowed. Ext.R3(f) is the order dated 10.07.1979 in
O.A.No.66/1978. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that
even after allowing the application by the Forest Tribunal,
actual restoration of possession was not made to him by the
Forest Department and this Court interfered and as per
Ext.R3(g), this Court issued appropriate directions. Ext.R3(h)
is the endorsement of Divisional Forest Officer restoring the
possession of property to the 3rd respondent. Ext.R3(i) is the
receipt dated 05.11.2011 showing the payment of revenue.
The Senior Counsel submitted that, in the light of these
documents, the 3rd respondent is the absolute owner of the
property. The petitioner and other adhivasis are not even
allowing the 3rd respondent to enter his property. Even at the
time of hearing of the appeal, the 3 rd respondent was not able
to reach the office of the appellate authority. Therefore
hearing of the appeal was changed to the District Collector's
Office, Palakkad. The Senior Counsel submitted that it is a
W.P.(C).No.17552/2019
case in which the 3rd respondent has got title over the
property. The Senior Counsel also takes me through Ext.P1,
the document produced by the petitioner to prove his title. The
Senior Counsel submitted that even if Ext.P1 is accepted in
toto, no title is proved with that document. Therefore the
Senior Counsel submitted that there is no merit in the writ
petition and this Court may kindly dismiss the same.
6. The Government Pleader submitted that there is
nothing to interfere in Exts.P2 and P7 orders. The Government
Pleader submitted that the original authority and the appellate
authority considered all the aspects and thereafter dismissed
the claim of the petitioner and there is nothing to interfere.
7. Admittedly the petitioner is an adhivasi. Therefore
this Court is bound to look into the matter very seriously.
Even though this is a writ petition under Article 226, it is the
duty of this Court to consider the grievance of the petitioner in
detail. The petitioner says that he has got title over the property
based on Ext.P1. It is better to extract the contents in Ext.P1:
"പ ടശ ട പപക ര ന ങൾക മ ൻകകവശമ യ
ന ന വര ന 11 ഏ. 4 സ . സലതന 1186 X 37 സക ലതതക
വതരണ പ ട വരവ ക.22. 8 (22 റ പ ക 8 കപ മ പ& )."
8. Ext.P1 is dated 10.03.1962. It is in the name of one
W.P.(C).No.17552/2019
Dasan. It is also stated that 'ക ള മ(പൻ ജമക മകൾ രങമ ൾ'.
The petitioner claims before the 2 nd respondent that he has got
property in Survey No.524/pt of Kottathara Village in Agali in
Mannarkadu Taluk. The 2nd respondent considered the matter
and dismissed the same as per Ext.P2 order. Thereafter the
petitioner approached the 1st respondent with an allegation
that the property of the 3rd respondent is in Survey No.353 of
Kottathara Village in Agali in Mannarkadu Taluk in which the
property of the 3rd respondent is situated. Therefore it is clear
that Survey No.353 came into picture only before the
appellate authority. Of course as stated by the counsel for the
petitioner, the petitioner is an adhivasi. He may not be
knowing about the survey number and other details. But the
petitioner relies on Ext.P1, which is an M.R.Receipt issued by
Mannarkadu Moopil Nair. I perused Ext.P1 again and again to
find out whether any title can be attributed to the petitioner
based on it. There is no survey number mentioned in it. The
village name is also not mentioned. It is stated in the
M.R.Receipt that there is a 'patta cheet'. The same is also not
produced. Based on Ext.P1 alone, this Court is not in a
position to accept the contention of the petitioner that, he has
W.P.(C).No.17552/2019
got title. On the other hand, the 3 rd respondent produced
Exts.R3(a) to R3(i). Ext.R3(a) is a registered assignment deed
in favour of the 3rd respondent. Ext.R3(b) is a land tax receipt
dated 02.07.1969. Ext.R3(d) is the purchase certificate issued
by the Land Tribunal dated 08.07.1976. Ext.R3(e) is the
receipt for payment of land revenue. Ext.R3(f) is the order
passed by the Forest Tribunal. Ext.R3(g) is the judgment of
this Court in which this Court directed the Principal Chief
Conservator of Forest to restore the land and property to the
3rd respondent. Ext.R3(h) is the receipt. In the light of
Exts.R3(a) to R3(i), I am not in a position to say that the 3 rd
respondent has no title over the property. Here is a case
where the petitioner claims title based on Ext.P1. I am not in
a position to accept the same alone to prove the title. Even if
Ext.P1 is accepted, I am not in a position to say that the
petitioner has got property in Survey No.353 of Kottathara
Village. In such circumstances, I am not in a position to
accept the contention of the petitioner. The other contention
raised by the petitioner is that no opportunity was given to the
petitioner by the appellate authority. I perused Ext.P7 order.
In the first page of Ext.P7 itself it is clearly stated that the
W.P.(C).No.17552/2019
petitioner was heard. In such circumstances, I am not in a
position to accept that contention of the petitioner also. In
Ext.P2 also it is stated that the petitioner was heard before
passing the order. In such circumstances, these contentions
cannot be accepted.
9. In the light of the above discussion, I think I am not
in a position to accept the contentions of the petitioner. There
is nothing to interfere in Exts.P2 and P7 orders.
The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
W.P.(C).No.17552/2019
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17552/2019
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE M.R. RECEIPT ISSUED
TO RENGAMMAL DATED 10.03.1962.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 09.07.2012.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.
(C)NO.20850 OF 2015 DATED 27.11.2018
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE FILED
BY THE COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTS DATED
02.02.2015 BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MALAYALAM TRANSLATION
OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 11.10.1963
RELIED ON BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
AT THE INSTANCE OF 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT (TAMIL)
DATED 11.10.1963 RELIED ON BY THE
APPELLATE AUTHORITY AT THE INSTANCE OF
3RD RESPONDENT (TRANSLATION OF
EXT.P5).
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
02.05.2019 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
ISSUED TO THE APPELLANTS.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED
20.05.2019 SUBMITTED AND PENDING
BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED
EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF 3RD RESPONDENT
DTED 9.1.1964
EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT
OF LAND TAX DATED 2.7.1969
EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAY,MENT
OF LADN TAX FOR THE YEARS 1969-70,
1970-71,72-73, 73-74 DATED 14.8.1974
EXHIBIT R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE
DATED 8.7.1976
W.P.(C).No.17552/2019
EXHIBIT R3(E) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT
OF LAND REVENUE DATED 5.8.1976 ISSUED
BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER
EXHIBIT R3(F) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
FOREST TRIBUNAL, MANJERI IN OA 66/1978
DATED 10.7.1979
EXHIBIT R3(G) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP
11730/1998 DATED 27.7.19998
EXHIBIT R3(H) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
21.3.1999 ISSUED TO 3RD RESPONDENT AND
THE ENDORSEMENT OF DIVISIONAL FOREST
OFFICER FOR RESTORING POSSESSION OF
HTE PROPERTY TO THIS RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R3(I) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
05.11.2011 FOR PAYMENT OF REVENUE
