Kerala High Court
Manoj V Cherian vs State Of Kerala on 23 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 24567 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 MANOJ V CHERIAN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O SEBASTIAN CHERIAN KUNJU,
ELENJICKAL HOUSE, VAZHICHERRY WARD, ST.GEORGE STREET,
MARKET WARD, ALAPPUZHA-688001.
2 SUSSIL.C.CHERIAN,
S/O.CHERIAN, ELENJICKAL HOUSE, VAZHICHERRY
WARD,ST.GEORGE STREET,
MARKET WARD, ALAPPUZHA-680001.
BY ADV A.KRISHNAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA-688001.
3 THE THASILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA-688013.
BY ADV.SMT AMMINIKKUTTY,SR GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 24567 OF 2021
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners impugn Ext.P5 in this writ
petition on various grounds and citing various
reasons; but primarily that they were not given
a proper opportunity of being heard, though a
formality of the same had been conducted by the
Tahsildar.
2. Sri.A.Krishnan - learned counsel for
the petitioners, elaborated the contentions,
saying that even though a date was fixed for
hearing of his clients by the Tahsildar, it was
not effective because they were not given the
opportunity of submitting written objections or
contentions, so as to enable the said Authority
to have assessed the same in terms of law. He,
therefore, reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P5 be
WP(C) NO. 24567 OF 2021
set aside.
3. In response, the learned Senior
Government Pleader - Smt.K.Amminikutty,
vehemently submitted that petitioners were
granted an effective opportunity of being heard
by the Tahsildar; but conceded, to a pointed
question from this Court, that a specific
chance to produce written objections or filing
written contentions had not been offered, since
it is not the normal procedure in such matters.
4. Even though I find some force in the
afore submissions of Smt.K.Amminikutty, I am of
the opinion that if a litigant harbours an
apprehension that his version has not been
properly appreciated by the Tahsildar, solely
because he has not been allowed to submit the
written submissions on record, such opportunity
must be granted to him/her; and am certain
WP(C) NO. 24567 OF 2021
that, to that extent, the petitioners ought to
be granted some latitude.
Resultantly and for the reasons above, I
order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P5;
with a consequential direction to the 3rd
respondent - Tahsildar to reconsider the
matter, after affording a fresh opportunity of
being heard to the petitioners, on which day,
he will also be entitled to submit on record
his written objections/contentions, which shall
be taken into account by the said Authority;
thus culminating in an appropriate order and
necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as
is possible, but not later than three months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Needless to say, if the petitioners furnish
their written objections to the Tahsildar, it
WP(C) NO. 24567 OF 2021
shall be specifically adverted to and averment
of the same by the said Authority shall be
recorded in the resultant order.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
SAS/23/11/2021
WP(C) NO. 24567 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24567/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF SETTLEMENT DEED DTD.21.6.97.
Exhibit P1(A) TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 27.6.00.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.10.02.2008.
Exhibit P2(A) TRUE COPY OF HEARING NOTICE.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 8.7.08.
Exhibit P3(A) TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 26.6.21.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF HEARING NOTICE DATED 8.9.21.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.10.2021.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 24.12.40.
