Fathima vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 1209 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                         PRESENT

      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

 WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA,
                          1942

          RP.No.159 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9022/2011

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 9022/2011(C) OF HIGH
                    COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONERS:

     1     FATHIMA, AGED 74 YEARS
           W/O. LATE MYTHEEN, KAMBAKUDY HOUSE, NELLIKUZHY
           P. O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686
           691.

     2     MUHAMMED, AGED 58 YEARS
           S/O. LATE MYTHEEN, KAMBAKUDY HOUSE, NELLIKUZHY
           P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686
           691.

     3     ABDUL KHADER, AGED 55 YEARS
           S/O. LATE MYTHEEN, KAMBAKUDY HOUSE, NELLIKUZHY
           P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686
           691.

     4     SUHARA, AGED 53 YEARS
           W/O. JAMAL, AKKULAMATTOM, RESIDING AT
           KAMBAKUDY HOUSE, NELLIKUZHY P.O.,
           KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 691.

     5     SAINUDHEEN, AGED 48 YEARS
           S/O. LATE MYTHEEN, KAMBAKUDY HOUSE, NELLIKUZHY
           P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686
           691.

     6     AYISHA, AGED 45 YEARS
           W/O. YUNUS, RESIDING AT KAMBAKUDY HOUSE,
           NELLIKUZHY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM
           DISTRICT - 686 691.
 RP.No.159 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9022/2011

                                ..2..


       7      HAMEED, AGED 43 YEARS
              S/O. LATE MYTHEEN, KAMBAKUDY HOUSE,
              NELLIKUZHY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM
              DISTRICT - 686 691.

       8      RUKHIYA, AGED 41 YEARS
              W/O. MEERAN, RESIDING AT KAMBAKUDY HOUSE,
              NELLIKUZHY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM
              DISTRICT - 686 691.

       9      NAVAS, AGED 38 YEARS
              S/O. LATE MYTHEEN, KAMBAKUDY HOUSE,
              NELLIKUZHY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM
              DISTRICT - 686 691.

              BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF

RESPONDENTS:

       1      STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
              REVENUE DEPARTMENT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695
              001.

       2      DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
              COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI - 682 030.

       3      THE TAHSILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, TALUK
              OFFICE,
              KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 666.

       4      THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE,
              ERAMALLOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 691.

       5      THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
              MUVATTUPUZHA, GROUND FLOOR, PATTIMATTOM,
              MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686
              673 .
 RP.No.159 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9022/2011

                                ..3..


       6      ADDL.R6 - MAIDHEEN MUHAMMED,
              S/O. MAIDEEN, ILAVUMCHALIL HOUSE, NELLIKUZHY
              P. O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -
              686 691.

       7      ADDL.R7 - THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
              PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS SECTION,
              KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 666.


              S GOPINATHAN SR GP

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
 RP.No.159 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9022/2011

                                ..4..




                              ORDER

Dated this the 13th day of January 2021

The review petitioners are the legal heirs of K.

Mohammed Mytheen. Mytheen purchased the property

covered by L.A. No. 9/73 from the patta holder

Moothedath Ali Hydrose. Total extent of the land is two

cents. Patta issued to Moothedath Ali Hydrose was

cancelled as per the proceedings dated 27.06.1977.

Thereafter, the Kerala Land Conservancy proceedings

was initiated. Challenging the land conservancy

proceedings, the writ petition was filed.

2. This Court, noting that there was no challenge

against the revocation of patta, did not interfere with the

land conservancy proceedings and disposed of the RP.No.159 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9022/2011

..5..

matter. Thereafter, this review petition was filed.

3. In this review petition, it was contended that a

revision was preferred before the Government and it was

numbered as File No. 1459/B2/86/M (R&T). Therefore,

the judgment is liable to be reviewed.

4 This Court on 30.09.2020 passed the following

order:

" The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that as against the dismissal of the appeal by the District Collector, he has preferred a revision petition before the 1st respondent-Government. It is further stated that copy of the memorandum of appeal was also forwarded to the Honourable Minister. The petitioners also refer the proceedings number as 1459/B2/86/M (R&T). It is submitted that this Court disposed the writ petition without any reference to the appeal/revision before the Government.

In such circumstances, it is appropriate that the learned Government Pleader is directed to get instructions from the 1st respondent-State Government in regard to pendency of proceedings No.1459/B2/86/M (R&T). "

5. Pursuant to the above direction, the learned RP.No.159 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9022/2011

..6..

Government Pleader obtained instructions. The learned

Government Pleader submits that the files are not

traceable, as it is related to the proceedings of the year

1996. However, it is submitted that, if a fresh

representation is submitted, the Government can

consider such representation.

6. Having considered the facts and

circumstances, I am of the view that, the review petition

can be disposed of with the following directions:

(i) The petitioner shall move the Government

within one month with a representation challenging

revocation of the patta issued in favour of Moothedath

Ali Hydrose.

(ii) The Government shall consider such RP.No.159 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9022/2011

..7..

representation within a period of six months.

(iii) Till disposal of the representation, no action

shall be taken against the petitioners. Further action

under the land conservancy proceedings would depend

upon the outcome of the decision of the Government.

The review petition is disposed of clarifying the

judgment to the extent as above.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

JUDGE

PR RP.No.159 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9022/2011

..8..

APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A1 A COPY OF THE PROCEEDING OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, TAHASILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM NO.KDIS.372/72 DATED 27.6.1977 NO.C-4- 4984/95.

ANNEXURE A2 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 25.5.1995 OF THE TAHASILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM.

ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE EVICTION NOTICE NO.K-

74/04 DATED 10.1.2020 OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS SECTION, KOTHAMANGALAM

ANNEXURE A4 THE TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 24/03/2004.

ANNEXURE A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPENDIX I (RULE 9.1) FORM OF ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT ON REGISTRY INCLUDING THE FORM OF PATTA.

ANNEXURE A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RULE 12(1) NOTICE ISSUED BY SPECIAL TAHASILDAR LAND ASSIGNMENT DATED 12/01/1973.

ANNEXURE A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT WITH THE STATEMENT PREPARED FOR ASSIGNMENT OF THE LAND.

ANNEXURE A8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO. A3-

372/72 DATED 21/10/1976 FOR CANCELLATION.

ANNEXURE A9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED IN THE CANCELLATION PROCEEDING.

RP.No.159 OF 2020 IN WP(C). 9022/2011

..9..

ANNEXURE A10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, ERAMALLOOR DATED 21/04/2007.

ANNEXURE A11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C4-

3652/20 DATED 17/06/2020 FROM THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT (L.R.) TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM.

ANNEXURE A12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C4-

2366/2020 DATED 12/03/2020.

ANNEXURE A13 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C4-

2077/20/K.DIS. DATED 13/03/2020.

ANNEXURE A14 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE PETITIONERS BUILDING.

ANNEXURE A15 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LOCATION OF BUILDING LOCATED IN PURAMBOKE LAND FACING THRIKKARIYOOR ROAD AND ALUVA-MUNNAR ROAD.