Siju George vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 3472 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                    PRESENT

              THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

                                       &

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

           MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 12TH MAGHA,1942

                           WP(C).No.4856 OF 2013(S)


PETITIONER/S:

                 SIJU GEORGE
                 AGED 30 YEARS
                 S/O.GEORGE, VALUMMEL HOUSE, VAZHAVARA KARA, KATTAPANA,
                 IDUKKI DISTRICT.

                 BY ADVS.
                 SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN
                 SRI.DIPU JAMES
                 SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
                 SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.)
                 SHRI.P.A.ISMAIL
                 SRI.M.D.SASIKUMARAN

RESPONDENTS:

       1         STATE OF KERALA
                 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
                 DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
                 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

       2         THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
                 CIVIL STATION, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI - 685 603.

       3         THE KATTAPANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE
                 REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KATTAPANA,
                 IDUKKI - 685 508.

       4         THE KATTAPANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
                 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KATTAPANA,
                 IDUKKI - 685 508.
 W.P.(C) No. 4856/2013                :2:

       5       SECRETARY
               KATTAPANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
               KATTAPANA, IDUKKI - 685 508.

       6       JOSE,
               AGED 44 YEARS
               S/O.AUGUSTHY, POOTHAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KATTAPANA KARA,
               KATTAPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 508.

       7       SUNIL,
               S/O.AUGUSTHY, POOTHAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KATTAPANA KARA,
               KATTAPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 508.

       8       REJI
               S/O.AUGUSTHY, POOTHAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KATTAPANA KARA,
               KATTAPANA VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 508.


               R1 & R2 BY SRI. SURIN GEORGE IPE
               R3 TO R5 BY SRI. JOICE GEORGE, SC
               R6 BY SRI.LIJI J VADAKKEDOM

      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.02.2021,
      THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No. 4856/2013                :3:


              Dated this the 1st day of February, 2021.

                               JUDGMENT

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

The petitioner, who is alleged to be a social worker, filed this writ

petition as a Public Interest Litigation seeking a writ of mandamus

commanding the State of Kerala, the District Collector, Idukki, the

Kattapana Grama Panchayat Committee, Idukki, Kattappana Grama

Panchayat represented by its Secretary and the Secretary, Kattappana

Grama Panchayat--respondents 1 to 5 not to transfer the properties

comprised in Survey No. 1/1 of Kattappana Village of Udumbanchola

Taluk in Idukki District to respondents 6 to 8, who are private parties

and also to issue a writ of mandamus declaring that the properties

comprised in Survey No. 1/1 of Kattappana Village of Udumbanchola

Taluk, Idukki District cannot be transferred as it is a Government land.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as

follows:

As per Ext. P1, one Augusthy Mathai, father of respondents 6 to

8, surrendered an extent of 1.70 acres of land specified above as per

the provisions of the Kerala Land Relinquishment Act, 1958 ('Act, 1958'

for short) and the Rules thereto for establishing a bus station by the

Kattappana Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, the said

property included patta land and non patta land evident from Ext. P2

judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 14685/2011 dated 26.07.2011

filed by respondents 6 to 8. It is the case of the petitioner that the

Kattappana Grama Panchayat is now attempting to re-convey the

property, which is admittedly a non patta land and is in the possession

of the Grama Panchayat for the past nearly 13 years. It is further

submitted that the proposal for the bus station is not abandoned by

the Grama Panchayat; however, the Grama Panchayat and respondents

6 to 8 are now hand in glove and attempting to take away the

Government land in the pretext that it is the property surrendered by

the party respondents. It is also submitted that the attempt made by

the Panchayat is against the Act, 1958 and the Rules framed

thereunder and also the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

3. So also, it is submitted that once relinquishment is accepted

and possession is taken over, it vests with the Government free from

all encumbrances and therefore, the Grama Panchayat is not entitled

to re-convey the property or in any way encumber the same. Anyhow,

in regard to the reconveyance of the property, O.S Nos. 225 of 2011,

226/2011 and 227/2011 were pending before the Subordinate Judge's

Court, Kattappana. Apparently, the settlement was arrived at by and

between respondents 6 to 8 and the Grama Panchayat in the suit

proceedings and has filed a compromise petition, whereby it was

agreed that the panchayat committee retains an extent of 90 cents in

order to surrender 75.46 cents of land to the Public Works Department

for constructing a mini civil station and 14.54 cents of land for

constructing a mini bus stand from the total extent of 1.70 acres of

land relinquished by the father of the party respondents.

4. Anyhow, on the basis of the settlement arrived by and

between the parties, permission was sought for by the Grama

Panchayat before the State Government to implement the conditions

contained in the compromise. On the basis of the same, the

Government issued Ext. P3 order dated 08.03.2013 bearing No. G.O.

(Ord.) No. 603/2013/LA according sanction for entering into the

compromise in the suits specified above. The sum and substance of the

contention advanced by the petitioner was that, he was unaware of the

proceedings pending before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kattappana

and the compromise entered into by and between the parties and

therefore, he has no other remedy than to approach this Court by filing

the writ petition.

5. The 5th respondent, namely the Secretary of the Grama

Panchayat, has filed a detailed counter affidavit justifying the stand

adopted in compromising the matter and also submitting that in

accordance with the compromise entered into by and between the

parties, as per Ext.R3(b), a decree is passed by the Subordinate

Judge's Court, Kattappana on 19.03.2013; and in order to proceed

with the compromise, sanction was sought for from the Government,

which was granted as per Ext. P3 order referred to above. Therefore, it

was submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to maintain a Public

Interest Litigation against a decree passed by a competent Civil Court.

6. We have heard Adv. Sri. George Mathew for the petitioner,

Sri. Surin George Ipe, learned Senior Government Pleader and Sri. Liji

J. Vadakkedom for the 6th respondent, and perused the pleadings and

materials on record.

7. The sole question arises for consideration is as to whether the

petitioner is entitled to get any relief as is sought for in the writ

petition. Admittedly, the property in question was relinquished by the

father of the respondents 6 to 8 in favour of the Grama Panchayat for

construction of a shopping complex and a mini bus station. It is also an

admitted fact that in spite of relinquishment of land as early as on

15.05.2000, no action was taken by the Panchayat to construct the

private bus stand and the shopping complex. It is evident from Ext. P1

relinquishment application that the extent of 1.70 acres of land was

surrendered for the purpose of constructing the private bus stand for

the use of the Kattappana Grama Panchayat. Presumably since no

action was taken, respondents 6 to 8 sought for reconveyance of the

land, which was not accepted by the Panchayat and which culminated

in W.P.(C) No. 14685 of 2011 filed by party respondents 6 to 8. The

said writ petition was disposed of, leaving open the liberty of the said

respondents to pursue Ext. P8 representation pending before the

Grama Panchayat. Anyhow, it is evident that nothing materialized,

which led to the filing of the civil suits by the said respondents and in

which a compromise was entered into by and between the parties, and

thus, the Grama Panchayat agreed to surrender the land after

retaining an extent of 90 cents from the total extent relinquished by

the father of respondents 6 to 8. It is also evident that in order to

proceed with the compromise, State Government has accorded

sanction and on the basis of the compromise, the Civil Court has

passed a decree.

8. In our considered opinion, the decree so passed by the civil

court cannot be upset by filing a Public Interest Litigation, especially

due to the fact that the petitioner could not establish any fraud or

material irregularity in the compromise entered into by and between

the Panachayat and respondents 6 to 8. The Government, while

considering the application of the Panchayat seeking sanction to enter

into compromise, it was found that the property was conveyed in

favour of respondents 6 to 8 by the father of Augusthy as per

settlement deed Nos. 1825/98, 1826/98 and 1831/98 respectively and

the said Augusthy did not have any power to relinquish the aforesaid

land to the Grama Panchayat. Therefore, it can be seen that it was

under the said complex situation that the Panchayat had entered into

the compromise with the party respondents and a decree was passed

by the civil court accordingly.

9. If the petitioner was really aggrieved due to any action on the

part of the Grama Panchayat in re-conveying a portion of the property

relinquished by the father of respondents 6 to 8 and the decree passed

by the civil court, he could have filed a suit by invoking the provisions

of Section 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure or else filed an appeal

after securing leave from the appellate court.

10. To put it otherwise, since there is a decree passed on the

basis of the compromise specified above, it cannot be upset in a Public

Interest Writ Petition. So also, the findings rendered by the

Government in Ext. P3 order regarding the complex situation due to

want of authority for Augusthy to surrender the land are not

specifically challenged by the petitioner and therefore, we do not think,

the Panchayat has acted illegally or otherwise in entering into the

compromise. It was also taking into account the other attendant facts

and circumstances in respect of the non-utilization of the property

relinquished, the Panchayat has taken the decision to compromise the

matter for better advantage of the Panchayat itself. In the facts and

circumstances, we do not think, the petitioner has made out any case

for interfering with the compromise executed by the Panchayat with

respondents 6 to 8.

Resultantly, writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed.

sd/-

S. MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE.

sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

Rv

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LAND RELINQUISH APPLICATION DATED 15.05.2000 GIVEN BY AUGUSTHY MATHAI, POOTHAKUZHIYIL.

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.07.2011 IN W.P.(C) No. 14685 of 2011.

EXT.P3: G.O.(Ord.) No. 603/2013/LSGD DATED 08.03.2013.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

EXT.R3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. NO. 603/2013/LSGD DATED 08.03.2013.

EXT.R3(a1): ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.R3(a).

EXT.R3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE COMPROMISE PETITION IN O.S. NOS. 225/2011, 226/2011 AND 227/2011 BEFORE THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, KATTAPPANA.

EXT.R3(b1): ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.R3(b).

/True Copy/

PS To Judge.

rv