Kerala High Court
H.Krishna Bhat vs The Commissioner Of Land Revenue & ... on 23 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2021 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 8201 OF 2010
PETITIONER:
H.KRISHNA BHAT
S/O.SUBRAYA BHAT, AGED 59 YEARS,,
'GURUPURAM',BELUR VILLAGE,HOSDURG, KASARAGOD,DIST
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.V.VENUGOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE & ORS
PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MESUEM JUNCTION.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
KASARAGOD,
3 THE TAHSIDAR HOSDURG
KASARAGOD DISTRICT.
4 T.V.RAJEEVAN SO.ALAMI
GURUPURAM,BELUR VILLAGE, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD.
5 K.KORAN SO.RAVUNNI.KUNDAMKUZHI
PULLUR P.O.,BELUR, HOSDURG, KASARAGOD.
BY ADV SRI.T.MADHU
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.SHEEJA.C.S., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 23.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.8201/2010
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.8201 of 2010
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2021
JUDGMENT
This writ petition is filed with following prayers:
i. to call for the records leading to the issuance of
Ext.P14 order and to quash the same by issuing a
writ of certiorari or other writ order or direction;
ii. to issue a writ of mandamus any other writ order
or direction commanding the 1 st respondent to
consider the revision petition filed by the 4 th
respondent afresh in the light of Ext.P8, P9 and
P11.
iii. to declare that the petitioner is eligible and
entitled to get assignment of the land.
Iv. to issue such other writ or direction as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
2. After a series of litigation, 1 st respondent passed
Ext.P14 order. Short point raised by the petitioner before this
W.P.(C).No.8201/2010
Court is that, as per Ext.P14 order, the Commissioner of Land
Revenue disposed a revision by a non speaking order in the
following manner:
"The eligibility of Sri.Koran stands
unquestioned and the revision petition is
allowed."
3. According to me, this is not the way an order to be
passed by the Revisional Authority. It is true that the facts
are narrated previous to this part of order. There is no
discussion and there is no application of mind. It is stated in
the penultimate paragraph of the order that after hearing the
Junior Superintendent at the Taluk Office, Hosdurg Taluk, it is
found that the 2nd respondent Sri. Koran is eligible for the said
assignment while the 1st respondent Sri. Krishna Bhat is
having four acres of land of his own, and is not eligible for
assignment. This is contradictory to Ext.P11. I don't want to
make any observation about the merit of the case. I am not
satisfied the way in which the 1st respondent passed Ext.P14
order. I leave open all the contentions of the petitioner and
the contesting respondents. The petitioner and the contesting
respondents can raise all their submissions before the 1 st
respondent and the 1st respondent will reconsider the matter
W.P.(C).No.8201/2010
in accordance to law. I make it clear that I have not
considered the matter on merit. The 1st respondent is free to
pass appropriate orders in accordance to law, but only after
hearing the petitioner and the affected parties. A speaking
order is necessary.
Therefore, this writ petition is allowed in the following
manner:
1. Ext.P14 order is set aside.
2. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider
the matter afresh after hearing the petitioner
and respondents 4 and 5, and pass appropriate
orders in accordance to law.
3. The above exercise should be completed as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within
five months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV JUDGE
W.P.(C).No.8201/2010
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8201/2010
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED TO THE
5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21/03/1994 IN
D.DIS 3873/94 (AA 187/85).
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.2342/93 EXECUTED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
BOARD OF REVENUE DATED 17/05/1995.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT, REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICER, KASARAGOD DATED 13/11/1996 IN
D.DIS. 5220/95.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
BOARD OF REVENUE DATED 23/01/1998 IN
LR (J2) 36146/96.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OS
NO.306/94.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) HOSDURG DATED
30/06/1998 IN REF. NO.A1901/94.
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/11/1998.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01/10/2001 IN LA
NO.134/2000.
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT IN AA 37/2001 DATED
22/05/2002.
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
07/02/2006 IN OP NO.4617/2000.
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT IN AA 16/2006 DATED
09/11/2006.
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28/01/2010 IN LR
(J2) 55117/06.
