Kerala High Court
P.J. Mathew vs The Vellavoor Grama Panchayat on 2 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943
RP NO. 879 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO.14083/2020 OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT:
V.O.THOMAS, AGED 77 YEARS,
S/O ULLAHANNAN, VETTITHANATHU HOUSE, KADAYANIKADU P O,
MANIMALA, PIN-686541.
BY ADVOCATE SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 P.J.MATHEW, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O LATE OUSEPH JOSEPH,
4TH WARD MEMBER AND STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN (WELFARE),
THE VELLAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VELLAVOOR,
RESIDING AT THANNIKKAL HOUSE, KADAYINIKADU P O,
MANIMALA, PIN-686541.
2 V M MATHEW, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O VARGHESE,
VETTITHANATHU HOUSE, KADAYINIKADU P O, MANIMALA, PIN-686541.
3 THE VELLAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT
VELLAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-683541.
4 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KANJIRAPPALLY-686506.
5 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MANIMALA POLICE STATION, MANIMALA-686543.
ADVOCATE SRI.K.R.SUNIL FOR R1 & R2
SRI.LIJI J. VADAKKEDAM, SC FOR R3
SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R4 & R5
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.07.2021 ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.14083/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 14083 OF 2020
PETITIONERS:
1 P.J. MATHEW, AGED 55, S/O. LATE OUSEPH JOSEPH, WARD MEMBER
AND STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN(WELFARE), THE VELLAVAOOR
GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VAELLAVOOR, RESIDING AT THANNIKKAL HOUSE,
KADAYINIKADU P O, MANIMALA.
2 V.M. MATHEW, AGED 53, S/O. VARGHESE, VETTIHANATHU HOUSE,
KADAYINIKADU P O, MANIMALA.
BY ADVOCATE SRI.K.R.SUNIL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE VELLAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
VELLAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 683541,
2 THE DEPUTY SUEPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,KANJIRAPPALLY-686506.
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
MANIMALA POLICE STATION, MANIMALA- 686543.
4 V.O. THOMAS,
VETTIHANATHU HOUSE, KADAYINIKADU P O, MANIMALA-686541.
SRI.LIJI J. VADAKKEDOM, SC FOR R1
SRI.SAIGI JACAOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R2 & R3
ADVOCATE SRI.SERGI JOSEPH THOMAS FOR R4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.07.2021, ALONG WITH RP.NO.879/2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
R.P. No. 879 of 2020
(arising out of judgment dated 21.7.2020 in
WP(C) No. 14083 of 2020)
&
WP(C) No. 14083 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2021
COMMON ORDER / JUDGMENT
R.P. No. 879 of 2020
Contesting respondent No.4 in WP(C).No.14083/2020
has filed this review petition seeking review and recall of the
impugned judgment dated 21.7.2020 rendered by this Court in the
above WP(C), filed by R-1 & R-2 herein.
2. Heard Sri.Sergi Joseph Thomas, learned counsel
appearing for the review petitioner/R-4 in the WP(C), Sri.K.R.Sunil,
learned counsel appearing for R-1 & R-2 in the R.P./writ petitioners,
Sri.Liji J.Vadakkedom, learned Standing Counsel for the Vellavoor
Grama Panchayat, appearing for R-3 in the R.P./R-1 in the WP(C)
and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader
appearing for official respondents 4 & 5/R-2 & R-3 in the WP(C).
3. The main contention raised by the review petitioner is
that the impugned judgment rendered by this Court in this WP(C) is
R.P. No. 879/2020 &
WP(C) No. 14083/2020
..4..
liable to be recalled on the ground that that the review petitioner
herein/R-4 in the WP(C) was not heard by this Court before
rendering the judgment in the WP(C). Further that, the review
petitioner has vital and substantial contention in the matter, and
that the if notice had indeed been issued to him, then he would have
certainly established that the sheet anchor of the case of the writ
petitioners on the basis of Ext.P-4 agreement is on the basis of an
untenable foundation, and that Ext.P-4 agreement was never
executed by the review petitioner either in favour of the writ
petitioners or anybody, and that the review petitioner has never
surrendered his landed property to the Panchayat for the formation
of any public road or public pathway, etc and that the subject
property claimed by the writ petitioners for the formation of the
Panchayat pathway in question, is actually the property exclusively
belonging to the ownership and possession of the review petitioner,
etc.
4. This Court had rendered the judgment in the WP(C) at
the admission stage without issuing notice for R-4 in the
WP(C)/review petitioner. One of the main contentions urged by the
petitioners in the WP(C) was on the basis of Ext.P-4 agreement
R.P. No. 879/2020 &
WP(C) No. 14083/2020
..5..
dated 30.6.2011 said to have been executed by R-4 in the
WP(C)/review petitioner in favour of the 2 nd writ petitioner and
some other persons and that the review petitioner has never
executed Ext.P-4 agreement and that he has never relinquished his
rights in his proper in favour of the Panchayat or anyone else on for
the formation of Panchayat pathway, etc. Further, the review
petitioner would point out that on being aware about the version of
the writ petitioners on the basis of Ext.P-4, the review petitioner had
given Anx-6 complaint dated 22.3.2020 before the 5 th respondent
SHO, Manimala Police Station and that later the 5 th respondent SHO
has submitted Anx-8 report dated 9.7.2020 making certain
submission which according to the review petitioner are in his
favour. Further, the review petitioner would also point out that he
had repeatedly given representations as in Anx-1 dated 18.5.2019,
Anx-2 dated 16.3.2020, Anx-3 dated 11.3.2020 before the Secretary
of the respondent Grama Panchayat as well as the District Collector
concerned, complaining that the action of the writ petitioners and
the Panchayat. Further that, the review petitioners have already filed
civil suit as Anx-5 O.S. No. 208/2020 before the Munsiff Court,
Changanassery, on 17.8.2020 in which, the writ petitioners herein
R.P. No. 879/2020 &
WP(C) No. 14083/2020
..6..
have been arrayed as defendants 1 & 2 therein, and the respondent
Panchayat herein was arrayed as the 3rd defendant therein, and the
prayer in the suit was for injunction and that one of the items of the
plaint schedule property therein is the subject property in this writ
proceedings. Further that, Anx-7 is the Advocate Commissioner's
Report already filed before that civil court in Anx-5 suit, etc.
5. Per contra, Sri.K.R.Sunil, learned counsel appearing for
R-1 & R-2 in the R.P./writ petitioners would point out that the
abovesaid contention of the writ petitioner that he had not executed
Ext.P-4 agreement is patently wrong, and that the public pathway
has already been formed and even concreting work has been
completed, and that both the review petitioner and the writ
petitioners belonged to the same family, and that the present
disputes are made only out of extraneous and oblique
considerations, etc.
6. Now, this Court cannot go into the veracity and
correctness of the rival factual submissions made in this case. After
hearing both sides this Court is of the considered view that this
Court should have issued notice to review petitioner/R-4 in the
WP(C) before deciding the matter in WP(C). If, as a matter of fact,
R.P. No. 879/2020 &
WP(C) No. 14083/2020
..7..
notice have been issued and the abovesaid factual version of the
review petitioner had brought on record, then, there was no scope
for this Court to render a judgment in the nature as the one rendered
in the instant case. Since, basic questions of facts are seriously
disputed by both sides, this Court should not have entertained a writ
proceedings of this nature.
7. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the
impugned judgment rendered by this Court is liable to be reviewed
and recalled. Accordingly, the impugned judgment rendered by this
Court on 21.7.2020 in WP(C).No.14083/2020 will stand recalled
and the WP(C) will stand restored to file.
With these observations and directions, the above
Review Petition will stand disposed of.
WP(C) No. 14083 of 2020
8. In view of the aspects already dealt with in the order in
the abovesaid Review Petition, this Court is of the considered view
that since there are serious disputes on the factual issues, it is not
right and proper for this Court to entertain and interfere in the
matter in any manner. The writ petitioners would place reliance on
R.P. No. 879/2020 &
WP(C) No. 14083/2020
..8..
Ext.P-4 agreement, whereas, the review petitioner would vehemently
contend that Ext.P-4 agreement was never executed by him, and
further that the subject property in which the pubic pathway in
question, is owned by him, etc. Further, the review petitioner would
contend that he has already given a complaint before the police
authorities as in Anx-6 which has resulted in Anx-8 report. Further,
it is also seen that civil dispute is already pending between the
parties as can be seen from Anx-5 plaint and Anx-7 Advocate
Commissioner's Report. Respondent No.4 herein has a specific case
that he has been repeatedly complaining against the conduct of other
side as can be seen from Anx-1 to Anx-3, etc. Anx-5 civil suit is
already pending. Therefore, all contentions available to both sides
are left open to be raised and decided in appropriate proceedings
including the present civil proceedings. No interference is called for
in this WP(C). Accordingly, the above WP(C) will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS,
JUDGE
MMG
R.P. No. 879/2020 &
WP(C) No. 14083/2020
..9..
APPENDIX OF RP.NO.879/2020
PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
18/05/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE REVIEW
PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, VELLAVOOR
PANCHAYAT.
ANNEXURE-2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
16/03/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE REVIEW
PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, VELLAVOOR
PANCHAYAT.
ANNEXURE-3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
11/03/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE R3EVEIW
PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOTTAYAM.
ANNEXURE-4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DATED
20/03/2020 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOTTAYAM.
ANNEXURE-5 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT, INJUNCTION
APPLICATION AND THE COMMISSION APPLICATION
IN OS NO.208/2020 ON THE FILES OF THE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHANGANASSERY DATED
17/08/2020.
ANNEXURE-6 TRUE COPY OF THE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED BY
THE REVIEW PETITIONER BEFORE 5TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE-7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT AND
SKETCH PREPARED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION
IN OS NO.208/2020 ON THE FILES OF THE
MUNSIFF'S COURT, CHANGANASSERY.
ANNEXURE 8 TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO. IO/RI
ACT/2020/MLA AND THE STATEMENT PREPARED BY
THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE 9 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
24/08/2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
R.P. No. 879/2020 &
WP(C) No. 14083/2020
..10..
ANNEXURE 10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A4-2538/2020
DATED 23/09/2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE 11 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 05/08/2020 OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
ANNEXURE 12 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 09/09/2020
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES:
ANNEXURE R2(A) THE TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS
SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE ROAD IN
QUESTION BEFORE THE CONCRETING AND AFTER
THE CONCRETING.
EXHIBIT R3(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF
THE ASSET REGISTER KEPT AT THE 3RD
RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT SHOWING THE ENTRY OF
MALANKOTTAPADI-PARAKKADAVU.
EXHIBIT R3(B) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.1/1 DATED
6.3.2020 OF THE VELLAVOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT
PROPOSING THE CONCRETING OF THE ROAD
EXHIBIT R3(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER OF
MEETING DATED 16.3.2020
EXHIBIT R3(D) TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY
THE REVIEW PETITIONER THROUGH SMT. SINI
JOSE (DAUGHTER OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER)
IN THE MEETING HELD ON 16.3.2020
EXHIBIT R3(E) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.1(2) DATED
5.8.2020 TAKEN BY THE VELLAVOOR GRAMA
PANCHAYAT
R.P. No. 879/2020 &
WP(C) No. 14083/2020
..11..
APPENDIX OF WP(C).NO.14083/2020
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRICE SCHEDULE
ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT TO ONE V.G. ANILKUMAR.
EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
12.03.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS
OF THE ASSET REGISTRAR OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH THE 2ND
PETITIONER ONE AJO AND ONE BENNY
ULAHANNAN.
EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.1
DATED 06.03.2020 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ON 20.03.2020.
EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
