Sabeela Rani vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 14980 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 14980 Ker
Judgement Date : 16 July, 2021

Kerala High Court

Sabeela Rani vs The State Of Kerala on 16 July, 2021

WP(C) NO. 22897 OF 2013                    1




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                     PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

            FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 25TH ASHADHA, 1943

                            WP(C) NO. 22897 OF 2013

PETITIONER/S:
            SABEELA RANI
            AGED 38 YEARS, D/O. AHAMMED BASHEER, NIDHI VILLA, KOVILMUKKU,
            PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM.

              BY ADV SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF


RESPONDENT/S:
     1      THE STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
            DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

      2       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
              KOLLAM - 691 001.

      3       THE TAHSILDAR
              TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM - 691 001.

      4       THE ADDITIONAL THASILDAR
              KOLLAM - 691 001.

      5       ELAMPLLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ELAMPALOOR, KUNDRA, KOLLAM -
              691 501.

  ADDL.R6     RDO,
              KOLLAM
              ADDITIONAL R6 SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
              16.7.2021 IN WP(C) NO.22897/2013
              BY ADV SRI.B.VINOD


OTHER PRESENT:

              SMT.SHEEJA.C.S., GP


       THIS    WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)       HAVING   COME   UP   FOR   ADMISSION   ON

16.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 22897 OF 2013               2




                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                 --------------------------------------------
                     W.P.(C.) No.22897 of 2013
                    --------------------------------------
                Dated this the 16th day of July, 2021


                               JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is field with the following

prayers :

(i) To call for the records relating to Exts.P1 and P9 and to issue any writ, order or direction commanding the respondents not to take possession of any portion of the property of the petitioner's property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed as includes puramboke land and also demolishing any structures therein, under the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act by recourse to the urgent provisions contained therein.

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus commanding the 2 nd respondent (District Collector) to order to resurvey and to locate the property covered by Ext.P1 in accordance with Ext.P5 sketch and not to allow recovery of any portions of the petitioner's property as puramboke land without fixing the boundaries and also after measuring the adjacent properties especially in 65 cents of property laying at the south-east of the petitioner's property and also to declare that the petitioner acquired title over the portion of the property now stated as puramboke land as per the re-survey, as the possession relates back to more than 50 years.

(iii) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction also may be granted to meet out justice under the circumstances of the above case."

2. The short facts are like this :According to the

petitioner, he purchased 5.75 cents of property by virtue of

Ext.P1 sale deed. According to the petitioner, she paid tax

for the property as evident by Ext.P2 tax receipt. The

Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions passed

Ext.P6 order, directing the Panchayat to measure the

property, after due notice to the petitioner in Ext.P6 and the

alleged trespassers, with the help of the Taluk Surveyor. This

order was passed based on a complaint filed by one

R.Raveendra Prasad. Consequently, Ext.P7 order was passed

by the Panchayat. Therefore, the petitioner filed W.P.(C.) No.

9749/2013 before this Court challenging the same. This

Court directed the Panchayat to consider the objections

submitted by the petitioner, after giving an opportunity of

hearing. According to the petitioner, no orders are passed. In

the meanwhile, when there was an attempt to measure the

property by the Taluk Surveyor, even without giving notice

to the petitioner, the petitioner approached the District

Collector as per Ext.P9 representation. Thereafter, Ext.P11

order is passed by the Addl. Tahsildar. Aggrieved by the

same, this writ petition is filed.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the

Government Pleader.

4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated his

contentions in the writ petition. The counsel submitted that

Ext.P11 order is passed by the 4 th respondent, without

looking into the relevant documents. The counsel also

submitted that Ext.P11 order is unsustainable. The

Government Pleader submitted that there is statutory

remedy against Ext.P11 as per Sec. 16 of the Kerala Land

Conservancy Act before the RDO, Kollam.

5. Admittedly, Ext.P11 order is passed by the 4th

respondent, when this writ petition was pending. In such

circumstances, according to me, this writ petition can be

disposed of, allowing the petitioner to file an appeal before

the additional 6th respondent against Ext.P11 and the interim

order can be continued till disposal of the appeal by the

additional 6th respondent.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed, with the

following directions :

1) The petitioner is free to file an appeal under Sec.16 of

the Kerala Land Conservancy Act before the additional 6 th

respondent within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

2) If such an appeal is received by the additional 6 th

respondent, the additional 6th respondent will consider the

same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance to law, after

hearing the petitioner and all other affected parties.

3) The interim order passed by this Court will continue till

disposal of the appeal by the additional 6th respondent.

4) The additional 6th respondent will dispose the appeal,

as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 6 months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.