Kerala High Court
I.P.Ibrahimkutty @ Kunhippa vs State Of Kerala on 23 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 1ST ASWINA,
1943
WP(C) NO. 14905 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
I.P.IBRAHIMKUTTY @ KUNHIPPA
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. ALI, AGED 55YRS, ITTIKAPARAMBIL PALAKKAL
(H), CHAMRAVATTOM P.O, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT.
BY ADV C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001
2 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
MALAPPURAM, MALAPPURAM P.O, PIN-676 505
4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, TIRUR, TIRUR P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676101
5 THE TAHSILDAR,
TIRUR TALUK OFFICE, TIRUR P.O, MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, PIN-676 101
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
TRIPRANGODE VILLAGE OFFICE, TRIPRANGODE P.O,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 108
WPC 14905/2021
2
7 KULANGARA MEERA,
D/O. PADMAVATHIAMMA, KULANGARA HOUSE, CHAMRAVATTOM
P.O, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676102.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. AMMINIKUTTY - SR. GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WPC 14905/2021
3
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------
WP(C) No.14905 of 2021
----------------------------------
Dated, this the 23rd day of September, 2021
JUDGMENT
The petitioner impugns Ext.P7 order of the fifth
respondent - Tahsildar, through which, his request for
assessment of a Tank and the property comprised of 25 cents
in re-survey No.296/9 of Trippangodu Village, has been
rejected saying that a title dispute has been raised against it
by the seventh respondent and because the parties have not
chosen to approach a competent Civil Court for declaration of
their title over it in their favour.
2. The petitioner says that the stand taken by the fifth
respondent - Tahsildar in Ext.P7 is untenable because, as
early as in the year 2007, this Court had, through Ext.P4
judgment, directed the fourth respondent - Revenue
Divisional Officer (RDO) to consider this issue and to take a
decision as to the assessment of the Tank in question. He
WPC 14905/2021
alleged that the RDO, however, did not take any action
thereafter and consequently, that the matter remains
unresolved until now. He thus prays that Ext.P7 be set aside,
asserting that the Tahsildar did not obtain any jurisdiction to
have issued the same, especially in the light of the directions
in Ext.P4 judgment; and consequently, that the fourth
respondent - RDO, be directed to take a final decision with
respect to the assessment of the Tank within a time frame to
be fixed by this Court.
3. I have heard Sri.C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Smt.K.Amminikutty, learned
Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 6.
4. Smt.K.Amminikutty, learned Senior Government
Pleader, in opposition to the afore plea of the petitioner,
submitted that, subsequent to Ext.P4 judgment, the petitioner
approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.28120/2020 and
sought that another representation of his be directed to be
disposed of by the Tahsildar. She pointed out that Ext.P6
WPC 14905/2021
judgment was thus delivered, directing the Tahsildar to take
up the said representation and dispose it of; and resultantly,
that the said Authority had no other option but to have issued
Ext.P7. She then added that, in any event of the matter, the
Tahsildar or the RDO could not have considered the rival
claims of title over the property in question, especially when
both sides are claiming it on the strength of valid documents.
She asserted that, therefore, the petitioner ought to have
approached a competent Civil Court, rather than have come
to this Court in this manner.
5. I must say that I find substantial force in the above
submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader
because, after the petitioner had himself approached this
Court by filing WP(C) No.28120/2020 and after having sought
direction to the Tahsildar to dispose of his representation,
when he was fully aware that action on Ext.P4 judgment in
OP No.8051/98 was still pending, I cannot find fault with the
Tahsildar in having issued Ext.P7, particularly when this Court
WPC 14905/2021
directed him to do so. I, therefore, fail to understand how the
petitioner now says that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction.
This can only be viewed with some seriousness because the
petitioner appears to be approbating and reprobating between
the alternatives, to seek an order which he believes would be
favourable to him.
6. Be that as it may, since I notice that the directions in
Ext.P4 judgment has not yet been complied with by the RDO,
I am of the firm view that, notwithstanding the directions in
Ext.P6, the said Authority must be ordered to hear the parties
and take a decision whether the title of either of them to the
property in question is clearly demonstrated.
7. If, on the contrary, even after assessment of the title
documents, the RDO is not able to find exclusive ownership
in either of the parties, then he must issue appropriate orders
to such effect, so that they can then obtain legal redress as
per law.
8. In the aforesaid circumstances, I direct the fifth
WPC 14905/2021
respondent to notify the petitioner and the seventh
respondent of an appropriate date for hearing; on which day,
they will be afforded an opportunity of being heard and to
place their respective versions based on their title documents,
thus culminating in an appropriate order in terms of the
directions in Ext.P4 judgment and my observations above.
9. The afore ordered exercise shall be completed by
the fourth respondent 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, as a direct consequence of the
directions above, Ext.P7 order of the Tahsildar will stand
quashed.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
jg
WPC 14905/2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14905/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.
3027/1999 OF SRO KODAKKAL DATED
17.11.1999.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 23.9.1997.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.12.1997.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO.
8051/1998 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED
9.3.2007.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
5TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2020.
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)
NO. 28120/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
DATED 17.12.2020.
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 5TH
RESPONDENT DATED 16.6.2021.
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY OF
THE TRIPRANGODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED
10.02.2021
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY THE SECRETARY OF THE TRIPRANGODE GRAMA
PANCHAYATH DATED 10.02.2021.
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH
RESPONDENT DATED 5.7.2021.
