S.K.Kamalakshi vs The District Collector Kozhikode
2021 Latest Caselaw 21028 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 28TH ASWINA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 5647 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
     1     S.K.KAMALAKSHI, AGED 68 YEARS
           D/O.S.K. KARUNAN (LATE), SRAMBIKKAL HOUSE,
           WEST HILL P.O, CALICUT - 673005.

    2     PRAKASHAN, AGED 66 YEARS
          S/O. S.K. KARUNAN (LATE), SRAMBIKKAL HOUSE,
          WEST HILL P.O, CALICUT - 673005.

    3     S.K. KOMALAVALLY, AGED 64 YEARS
          D/O. S.K. KARUNAN (LATE), SRAMBIKKAL HOUSE,
          WEST HILL P.O, CALICUT - 673005.

    4     S.K. SURESH, AGED 62 YEARS
          S/O. S.K. KARUNAN (LATE), SRAMBIKKAL HOUSE,
          WEST HILL P.O, CALICUT - 673005.

          SRI.NIRMAL. S
          SMT.VEENA HARI
          SMT.RIA ELIZABETH JOSEPH
          SMT.IRENE ELZA SOJI


RESPONDENTS:
     1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOZHIKODE
           COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD,
           ERANHIPPALAM, CALICUT CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE,
           KERALA - 673020.

    2     THE SUB COLLECTOR AND SUB - DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,
          KOZHIKODE, CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM,
          CALICUT CIVIL STATION P.O, KOZHIKODE, KERALA - 673020.

    3     THE TAHSILDAR, KOZHIKODE TALUK, CIVIL STATION, WAYANAD
          ROAD, ERANHIPPALAM, CALICUT CIVIL STATION P.O,
          KOZHIKODE, KERALA - 673020.

          SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHIS GEORGE- GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 5647 OF 2021
                                      2


                                   JUDGMENT

The petitioners impugn Ext.P7 proceedings issued by the

second respondent - Sub Collector, under the provisions of the

Kerala Escheats and Forfeitures Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'),

through which, certain properties have been ordered to be

resumed under the provisions of the Act.

2. The petitioners say that they were not aware of the

proceedings pending before the Sub Collector at any point of

time, nor about a notification in the Gazette with respect to the

same. They assert that they have clear title over the property

in question, but that since they were not given an opportunity

of being heard prior to Ext.P7 being issued, they were unable

to appraise the competent Authority of the same.

3. The petitioners also have a further case that the Sub

Collector is not the competent Authority to have issued Ext.P7

under the Act and that such an order could have been issued

only by the District Collector. They, therefore, pray that Ext.P7

be set aside and the District Collector be directed to

reconsider the matter, particularly because they have

approached him through Ext.P8, detailing their claims over the

property, on the strength of all necessary and germane

documents.

WP(C) NO. 5647 OF 2021

4. I have heard Smt.Ria Elizabeth Joseph, learned

counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Rajeev Jyothish George,

learned Government Pleader.

5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, as is

evident from Ext.P7, even though a Gazette notification was

made, no one other than a certain Sri.M.Rajan and Sri.Shinoj

had made claims over the property; and therefore, that the

Sub Collector had settled the said order, after following all due

procedure. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be

dismissed.

6. When I evaluate the rival submissions, it is clear that

there are two broad issues involved, namely (a) whether the

Sub Collector was competent to have issued Ext.P7; and (b)

whether the petitioners are liable to be given an opportunity of

being heard by the District Collector, based on their Ext.P8

representation.

7. As regards the first contention, I do not think that this

Court will be justified in entering into its merits since this is a

matter which will have to be decided by the competent

Authority, should this Court feel it necessary that the matter

requires a reconsideration.

WP(C) NO. 5647 OF 2021

8. That so said, when one examines Ext.P7, it is clear that

the petitioners were not given an opportunity, but I cannot find

fault with the Sub Collector in not offering it to them, because

they themselves admit that they were not aware of the

proceedings nor were they even cognizant of the Gazette

notification made by the Authorities. However, going by

Ext.P8, the petitioners seem to be making a claim over the

property based on little documents; and hence whether they

are genuine and whether the claim is deserving of being

allowed are certainly issues to be decided by the District

Collector under the provisions of the Act.

9. I am, therefore, of the firm view that Ext.P8 will

require to be considered by the District Collector

appropriately; and if the petitioners are able to convince the

said Authority of their claim over the property, then suitable

changes to Ext.P7 will also require to be effected, after

evaluating whether the Sub Collector had jurisdiction to issue

the said order.

10. Presumably being aware of the mind of this Court as

afore, the learned Government Pleader, Sri.Rajeev Jyothish

George, submitted that if this Court is inclined to direct the

District Collector or take up Ext.P8, there is no legal WP(C) NO. 5647 OF 2021

impediment for the said Authority in doing so; but praying

that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations in

favour of the petitioners in any manner and allow the said

Authority to take a decision on Ext.P8 as per law.

11. Taking note of the afore submissions, I allow this writ

petition and direct the first respondent - District Collector, to

take up Ext.P8 representation of the petitioners and dispose of

the same, after affording them an opportunity of being heard;

thus culminating in an appropriate decision thereon, as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is

completed and the resultant order communicated to the

petitioners - which shall also contain the opinion of the District

Collector as to the competence of the Sub Collector in having

issued Ext.P7 - the status quo with respect to the property in

question as of today shall be maintained by both sides.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 5647 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5647/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE KANAM ASSIGNMENT DEED BEARING NO. 825/1931.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF CHOYICHI ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE DATED 16.12.1991.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE OF CHOYICHI SHOWING THAT DAKSHAYANI IS THE ONLY LEGAL HEIR OF CHOYICHI, W/O. KANDAN DATED 04.01.1993.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF DAKSHAYANI ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR OF BIRTHS AND DEATHS, CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE DATED 01.04.2011.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE OF DAKSHYANI DATED 13.02.2012 SHOWING THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE THE ONLY SURVIVING LEGAL HEIRS OF DAKSHAYANI TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE OF DAKSHAYANI DATED 13.02.2012 SHOWING THAT THE PETITIONERS ARE THE ONLY SURVIVING LEGAL HEIRS OF DAKSHAYANI.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.

148/72 DATED 05.12.1972.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, KOZHIKODE DATED 06.10.2018.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06.02.2021 PREFERRED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 25/08/2021.