Liji.J vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 23261 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
  THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 4835 OF 2019
PETITIONER:

          LIJI.J
          AGED 32 YEARS
          D/O.JAYADEVAN,POVANAMVILA,AYIROOR.P.O,
          VARKALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

          BY ADVS.
          S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)
          SMT.ANNIES MATHAI
          SRI.DENIZEN KOMATH



RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF
          REVENUE,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    2     DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695035.

    3     THE SUB COLLECTOR,
          COLLECTORATE,CIVIL STATION,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    4     TAHZILDAR,
          TALUK OFFICE,VARKALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695141.

    5     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
          AYIROOR VILLAGE OFFICE,VARKALA,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    6     ELAKAMON GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,AYIROOR POST,
          VARKALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695310.

    7     DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
     WP(C) NO. 4835 OF 2019
                                 2

          BY ADVS.

          SRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR




          SRI. ASWIN SETHUMADHAVAN SR.G.P.




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 4835 OF 2019
                                  3

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner claims to be the legal heir

of a certain Sri.Sathyadevan, who admittedly

was assigned certain extents of land by the

Government, through Ext.P1 Land Assignment

"Patta". She says that she bequeathed the

property covered by Ext.P1, on the death of

Sathyadevan, but that when she asserted her

ownership and possession of the same, the

Revenue Authorities objected to by saying that

certain extents in Ext.P1 is "puramboke" and

that she cannot stake any claim over the same.

2. The petitioner says that, she,

therefore, took up the matter before the

various Revenue Authorities, including the Land

Revenue Commissioner and that since she has not

been able to obtain affirmative orders on her

claims, she has been constrained to approach

this Court through this writ petition. WP(C) NO. 4835 OF 2019

3. I have heard Sri.S.Sreekumar - learned

Senior Counsel, instructed by Smt.Mereena

J.Joseph - learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan - learned Senior

Government Pleader appearing for the official

respondents.

4. Sri.S.Sreekumar, learned Senior

Counsel, argued that Exts.P6, P6A , P10 and P18

are egregiously improper and without basis

because his client's property is covered by

Ext.P1 "patta" and therefore, that unless it is

measured, identified and demarcated with proper

notice to her, no action under the Kerala Land

Conservancy Act ('LC Act' for short) could have

been taken forward. He contented that,

therefore, until such proceedings are

completed, the Authorities cannot disturb his

client's settled ownership and possession of

the property in question; and thus

reiteratingly prayed that the reliefs sought WP(C) NO. 4835 OF 2019

for in this writ petition be granted.

5. In response, Sri.Aswin Sethumadhavan -

learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted

that the petitioner has no locus to maintain

this writ petition, except to an extent of 10.6

Ares, which is covered by Annexure R1(b)

Partition Deed. He explained that the

petitioner is not the daughter of

Sri.Sathyadevan, but only his niece and

therefore, that she cannot claim that, on his

death, the entire property would devolve upon

her. He pointed out that, even going by

Annexure R1(b) Partition Deed, she has been

bequeathed only 10.6 Ares of land and that no

action has been taken against the said extent

by any of the Revenue Authorities, through the

impugned orders. He thus predicated that the

challenge to Exts.P6, P6A, P10 and P18 by the

petitioner is extremely malafide and that she

is, through such plea, attempting to take WP(C) NO. 4835 OF 2019

possession and ownership of properties which

are not entitled to her. He, therefore, prayed

that this writ petition be dismissed .

6. In reply, Sri.S.Sreekumar - learned

Senior Counsel, submitted that his client still

maintains that she is the owner of the entire

extent of the property covered by Ext.P1

"Patta", she being the only legal heir of

Sri.Sathyadevan; and alternatively argued that

if this Court is not inclined to accept such

plea, then liberty may be reserved to his

client to approach a competent Civil Court for

declaration of title over the property, so that

she can then legitimately defend the action

under the Land Conservancy Act now invoked

against her. He then prayed that, if this Court

is only inclined to accept his alternative

plea, then some "breathing time" may be offered

to his client, to approach the competent Count

for such purpose.

WP(C) NO. 4835 OF 2019

7. When I evaluate the afore submissions,

there can be no doubt that the petitioner can

only claim such extent of property over which

she can establish title through cogent and

reliable evidence, including title documents.

8. As far as this Court is concerned, it

can only see Annexure R1(b) partition deed on

record, which is the sole title deed produced

with respect to the property in ownership and

possession of the petitioner, but which covers

only 10.6 Ares of land. The claim of the

petitioner - that she is the sole legal heir of

Sri.Sathyadevan, being thus entitled to whole

of the property covered by Ext.P1 "Patta" -

cannot be considered by this Court or spoken

affirmatively since it is for her to pursue

such a plea before a competent Civil Court and

obtain necessary declaration. As far as the

petitioner is presently concerned, she can

certainly contend that her possession and WP(C) NO. 4835 OF 2019

ownership over 10.6 Ares of land covered by

Ext.P1 "Patta" cannot be disturbed and it is

pertinent that Ext.P6, P6A, P10 and P18 do not

touch that extent at all; and this is expressly

and unequivocally admitted by Sri.Aswin

Sethumadhavan - learned Senior Government

Pleader.

9. In the afore circumstances, I cannot

find favour with the petitioner in her

challenge against the impugned orders and am

certain that if she wants to stake claim over

the entire property covered by Ext.P1, she will

have to approach a competent Civil Court.

10. In order to enable the petitioner to

invoke remedies appropriately, without the fear

of imminent coercive action, I order that the

status quo with respect to the property covered

by Ext.P1 "Patta", will be maintained for a

period of two months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this judgment, so as to enable her WP(C) NO. 4835 OF 2019

to approach a competent Civil Court and invoke

and pursue her remedies as per law.

11. Needless to say, if, within the afore

period, the petitioner is not able to obtain

any favourable interdictory orders from the

competent Civil Court, then action except in

the case of the extent covered by Annexure

R1(b), can be taken forward by the competent

Authorities, after following due procedure.

12. At this time, the learned Senior

Government Pleader pointed out that, under the

interim orders of this Court, the disputed

extent is now being used to construct a police

station and prayed that the same be allowed to

be continued, however, affirming that if the

competent Civil Court is to find in favour of

the petitioner in any manner, the State and its

functionaries will abide by the same, subject

to their available remedies. This is recorded,

and consequently, the construction, if any, WP(C) NO. 4835 OF 2019

being carried on in the said property, will be

allowed to continue, however, on the strict

condition that if any order in favour of the

petitioner is issued by a competent Civil

Court, the Authorities will be bound to abide

by the same, subject to their applicable

remedies. To this extent, the afore order of

status quo will stand modulated.

This writ petition is thus disposed of.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE SAS/25/11/2021 WP(C) NO. 4835 OF 2019

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4835/2019

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PATTA BEARING NO.LA.II 4/85 DATED 16.05.1985.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A.NO.954/2003.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECISION REACHED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 24.05.2013

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE DECREE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT,VARKALA IN O.S.NO.108/75.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TAHZILDAR,UNDER RULE 9 OF THE KERALA LAND CONSERVANCY RULES.

EXHIBIT P6A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TAHZILDAR,UNDER RULE AND 11 OF THE KERALA LAND CONSERVANCY RULES.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2018 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT VIDE REFERENCE NO.D/18630/17/D.DIS

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 28.03.2018.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINANT LODGED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 12.07.2018 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9A TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT OF ACCEPTANCE OF EXHIBIT P-9 COMPLAINANT.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR WP(C) NO. 4835 OF 2019

DATED 20.07.2018.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 25.07.2018.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATUTORY REVISION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT GOVERNMENT.

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT AND OTHERS.

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 27.03.2018.

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC.NO.27865/2018.

EXHIBIT P16 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CALL LETTER DATED 27.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT T THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P17 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE HEARING NOTE SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P18 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.01.2019 ISSUED VIDE REFERENCE NO.G.O. (MS)NO.31/2019/RD.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

ANNEXURE R1A SEREIES TRUE COPIES OF THE HEARING NOTICES

ANNEXURE R1B TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.1291/2014