Kerala High Court
Abraham Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 1 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 9TH ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 3134 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
ABRAHAM JOSEPH, AGED 70 YEARS,
S/O. JOSEPH, PUTHANPURAKKAL HOUSE, CHEMBALAM KARA,
PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.C.DEVASIA, SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI
SMT.ANCY MATHEW
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO REVENUE,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, KUYILUMALA, PINAVU,
IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685509.
3 ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK OFFICE, NEDUMKANDAM - 685507.
4 VILLAGE OFFICER, PAMPADUMPARA, PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE
OFFICE, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685505.
5 THE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PAMPADUMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, PAMPADUMPARA, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685505.
6 ANTONY JOSEPH @ PONNACHAN, PALATHANAM HOUSE, CHEMBALAM
KARA, PAMPADUMPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN - 685505.
*ADDL.R7 THE TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK
OFFICE, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 507.
*IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R7 AS PER ORDER DATED
11.02.2021 IN I.A.01/2021 IN WP(C) 3134/2021.
BY ADVS. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM, SRI.S.DILEEP (KALLAR),
SMT. RESMI THOMAS - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 3134 OF 2021
-2-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner says that an extent of 1.50
Acres of land, comprised of in Sy.No.17/5 of
Pampadumapara Village, is in his ownership and
possession for the last several years, which is
evident from Ext.P1. He says that he purchased the
same under the impression that it was not a
'Patta' land, but it was then revealed that the
assignment was in favour of one Sri.Devassy
Gownder in the year 1956.
2. The petitioner says that, since the legal
heirs of the aforementioned Sri.Devassy Gownder
has not been traced, the Sale Deed was not able to
be registered in his name by Sri.Rajappan and
Smt.Indhira, from whom he purchased the property,
though they had executed an unregistered agreement
in his favour.
3. The petitioner says that he is in
WP(C) NO. 3134 OF 2021
continuous possession of the property thereafter,
which is also evident from Ext.P2 Ration Card and
that he, therefore, preferred Ext.P10 application
for assignment in his favour before the 3rd
respondent - Additional Tahsildar(LA); however, it
was rejected by the said Authority, through
Ext.P11, saying that this property is owned by
Udumbanchola Panchayat.
4. The petitioner says that the afore
statement in Ext.P11 is incorrect, as is manifest
from Ext.P12, because Government has now declared
that the property in question is "government" land
and has, in fact, asked him to be evicted from
there, on the ground that he has encroached into
the same.
5. The petitioner asserts that the statements
in Exts.P11 and P12 are contrary to each other and
therefore, that the competent Authority has a duty
to consider his application for assignment, namely
WP(C) NO. 3134 OF 2021
Ext.P10, as per law. He thus prays that Ext.P11 be
set aside and the competent Authority be directed
to reconsider his application, thus leading to
issuance of 'Patta' in his favour with respect to
the property in question. He further prays that
this be directed to be done adverting to Ext.P9
judgment in W.P.(C)No.938 of 2013 obtained in the
year 2019, wherein, he was given the liberty of
making application for assignment before the
Additional Tahsildar, which led to Ext.P10
application being made.
6. The learned Government Pleader - Smt.Resmi
Thomas, refuted the afore submissions of
Sri.Mathew Devasia - learned counsel for the
petitioner, saying that, since the property in
question belongs to the Panchayat, Ext.P11 had
been issued rejecting the petitioner's
application. She then conceded that the Panchayat,
however, did not produce any document to show that
WP(C) NO. 3134 OF 2021
they were in ownership or possession of the same
and consequently that it was resumed by the
Government, and that this has been stated in
Ext.P12. She submitted that, therefore, the
petitioner's request in this writ petition cannot
be acceded to.
7. When I hear the learned Government Pleader
as afore, it is limpid that there is some force in
the submissions of the petitioner that if the land
in question is a government land, his application
could not have been rejected on the ground that it
is not capable of being assigned. Pertinently, in
Ext.P12, petitioner has been declared to be an
encroacher and was asked to evict from the area in
question, but without considering his application
for assignment which was, in fact, preferred in
terms of the liberty reserved to him through
Ext.P9 judgment.
8. The irony of the situation is that when he
WP(C) NO. 3134 OF 2021
made Ext.P10 application, based on Ext.P9
judgment, it was rejected through Ext.P11, saying
that the property belongs to the Panchayat;
whereas in Ext.P12, he has been found to be an
encroacher on the ground that the property belongs
to the Government.
9. I must also record at this juncture that
Sri.Liji J.Vadakedom - learned Standing Counsel
for the 5th respondent - Grama Panchayat, affirmed
that the property in question never belonged to
his client and that it is always remaining as a
government land.
10. It is, therefore, without doubt that
Ext.P11 cannot find favour, nor can the action as
proposed in Ext.P12 be allowed, until the
petitioner's Ext.P10 application is properly
considered by the competent Authority.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ
petition and set aside Ext.P11; with a
WP(C) NO. 3134 OF 2021
consequential direction to the 3rd respondent -
Additional Tahsildar, to take up Ext.P10
application of the petitioner and dispose it of on
its merits, after affording him an opportunity of
being heard.
Needless to say, until such time as the afore
exercise is completed and the resultant order
communicated to the petitioner, all further action
pursuant to Ext.P12 will stand deferred and will
be taken forward only if the Tahsildar is to find
against the petitioner consequent to the afore
exercise.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
akv
WP(C) NO. 3134 OF 2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3134/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR UDUMBANCHIOLA
DATED 05.03.2004 IN FAVOUR OF THE
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD ISSUED BY
THE RATIONING AUTHORITY DATED
18.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
10.10.2005.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE OMBUDSMAN
IN O.P.NO.1219/2011 DATED 27.04.2012.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
R.P.NO.54/2012 IN O.P.NO.1219/2011
DATED 24.08.2012.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY
THE TALUK SURVEYOR TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 27.07.2012.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 21.12.2012.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LC NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20.09.2012.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
NO.938/2013 DATED 02.07.2019.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
29.08.2019 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
WP(C) NO. 3134 OF 2021
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
08.11.2019.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE
ORDER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
01.02.2021.
EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE CHIEF
MINISTERS OFFICE DATED 25.01.2021.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
