Ravi @ Raveendran vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 23354 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. 23758 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          RAVI @ RAVEENDRAN
          AGED 65 YEARS
          S/O RAMAN,
          HOUSE NO.8/44 A,
          THERULLIPPARAMBIL HOUSE,
          PIZHALA, KADAMAKKUDI, PIZHALA P.O, PIN-682027.

          BY ADVS.
          SHERRY J. THOMAS
          THAMANA BAI
          REBINSON M.P.
          JOEMON ANTONY
          SAJAN VARGHESE M.



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM-682030.

    2     THE TAHSILDAR (LR)
          KANAYANNOOR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682011.

    3     THE TAHSILDAR,
          LAND TRIBUNAL, MINI CIVIL STATION, TRIPPUNITHURA,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682301.

    4     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
          KADAMAKUDY VILLAGE OFFICE, PIZHALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
          PIN-682027.
 WP(C) NO. 23758 OF 2021
                                      2


OTHER PRESENT:

             SMT. SURYA BINOY- 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. 23758 OF 2021
                               3


                       JUDGMENT

The petitioner alleges that there is a mismatch in the

description and tenure of the property involved in this case

in the Village records and in the land records. He explains

that, as is evident from Ext.P10, the Land Tribunal,

Ernakulam, refused to issue him a Purchase Certificate

solely because, in the Land Records, the land is described

as being "Puramboke"; but asserts that in the Revenue

Records, it has been shown as "freehold property", over

which he has possession.

2. The petitioner says that he, therefore, preferred

Ext.P11 application before the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar

(Land Records), so that the entire issue can be considered

by him, leading to the records being properly rectified and

altered; but alleges that no action has been taken thereon,

thus constraining him to approach this Court through this

writ petition.

WP(C) NO. 23758 OF 2021

3. I have heard Sri.Sherry J.Thomas - learned

counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Surya Binoy - learned

Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official

respondents.

4. Smt.Surya Binoy submitted that the petitioner

cannot maintain this writ petition because the Revenue

Records show the description of the property claimed by

him as being "Government land". She submitted that,

therefore, unless the revenue records are properly

corrected, the petitioner cannot stake any claim over the

property in question. However, after saying so, as an

alternative submission, the learned Senior Government

Pleader submitted that if the petitioner only requires

Ext.P11 to be decided by the 2 nd respondent - Tahsildar in

terms of law, she would not stand in the way of such

orders being issued; but prayed that this Court may not

make any affirmative declarations on the entitlement of

the petitioner to any relief and leave it to be decided by WP(C) NO. 23758 OF 2021

the said Authority, in terms of law.

5. When I consider the afore submissions, it is

evident that this Court is, at this stage, incompetent to

speak conclusively upon the controversy in the question,

since it requires evaluation of necessary factual

circumstances and documents.

6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that Ext.P11

should engage the attention of the 2 nd respondent -

Tahsildar, so that he can then take a decision, including as

to its maintainability, after hearing the petitioner.

In such circumstances, I order this writ petition to the

limited extent of directing the 2 nd respondent - Tahsildar to

take up Ext.P11 application of the petitioner and dispose of

the same, after affording him an opportunity of being

heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon,

as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three

months from the date of receipt of a copy of this WP(C) NO. 23758 OF 2021

judgment.

Needless to say, I have not considered the merits of

the contentions of the petitioner in any manner, and they

are left open to be pursued by him appropriately before

the 2nd respondent, when the afore exercise is completed,

or before any other Authority in future, as he may be

advised.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ANB WP(C) NO. 23758 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23758/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SM APPLICATION NO.16/2014 DATED 21.11.2013.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHASSAR DATED 22.11.2013.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 29.11.2013.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER WHICH SHOWS THE THANDAPPER NO.1288.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAMAKKDY, DATED 6.12.2013.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FROM THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, DATED 12.05.2014.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAMAKKUDY, DATED 17.10.2014.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.09.2014.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER PUBLICATION WAS ALSO PUBLISHED IN THE MANGALAM DAILY DATED 5.10.2014.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.1.2015.

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 25.08.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR (LR).

Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 26.08.2021.