K.P.Sukumaran vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 1181 Ker

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                         PRESENT

                       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

                FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA, 1943

                                 WP(C) NO. 32585 OF 2016

PETITIONER:

               K.P.SUKUMARAN, AGED 65 YEARS S/O LATE PULLAN, KARIPURATHU
               HOUSE,VAIMELI LANE, HMC ROAD, SOUTH CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR P.O.,
               ERNAKULAM.

               BY ADV P.S.ABDUL KAREEM



RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
               DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENTSECRETARIAT,
               TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

      2        THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORTKOCHI, COCHIN-682 001.

      3        THE TAHASILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, COCHIN-682 011.

   ADDL.R4     KADAMAKKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
               PIZHALA P.O., ERNAKULAM, COCHIN - 682 027
               REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

               ADDITIONAL 4TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.10.2020 IN
               I.A.3/2020 IN WP(C).

               R1 TO 3 - SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY,GOVERNMENT PLEADER
               ADDL.R4 - SRI.K.M.VARGHESE

       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.01.2022, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 32585 OF 2016
                                       :: 2 ::




                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28th day of January 2022

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following

reliefs:

1. Call for the records leading to Exhibit P5 order to the extent which it reduced the property of the petitioner from 1 acre to 12.250 cents and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction compelling the 2nd respondent to take a decision on Exhibit P6 and P7 within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

2. According to the petitioner, he belongs to a Scheduled Caste

community and is in possession of 40.47 Ares of paddy field in old Sy.No.705

of Kadamakkudy Village and the petitioner was issued with a pattayam for

the same. However, after the resurvey, the property of the petitioner was

shown as poramboke in the revenue records, which is entered in the

revenue records as per proceedings No.DSA 61/07 and the petitioner paid

land tax as evident from Ext.P2. The case of the petitioner is that soon after

the petitioner paid land tax, some persons claimed to be officials attached to WP(C) NO. 32585 OF 2016 :: 3 ::

the Kanayannur Taluk Office took away the original patta of the petitioner

and even though petitioner made earnest efforts to secure the patta back,

the officials demanded illegal gratification for the same. Anyhow, on the

basis of the application submitted by the petitioner, Tahsildar passed Ext.P5

order apparently on the basis of directions issued by this court in W.P.

(C)No.20691/2008, however, the reliefs. Being aggrieved, petitioner has

preferred Ext.P6 application and Ext.P7 appeal before the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Fort Kochi, which are pending consideration.

3. On an analysis of the pleadings and the documents, it is categoric

and clear that the preliminary relief sought for by the petitioner is disposal

of Ext.P6 application and Ext.P7 appeal. But the writ petition was pending

before this court for the last five years, without securing any interim

orders. Therefore, I honestly believe that the writ petition should be

disposed of so as to have finality of the issue by disposing of the appeal

pending before the Revenue Divisional Officer.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat submitted that the

Panchayat also may be heard while disposing of the appeal since the

Panchayat has a case that the property is encroached by the petitioner and

that the Panchayat is entitled as of right to that property by virtue of the

provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. WP(C) NO. 32585 OF 2016 :: 4 ::

5. However, learned Government Pleader submitted that Ext.P6

application is not received before the Revenue Divisional Officer which

according to me is a matter to be identified by the Revenue Divisional

Officer. Government Pleader has also a contention that the appeal is filed

out of time.

6. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Revenue Divisional

Officer, Fort Kochi and a statement is filed by the Tahsildar, Kanayannur

Taluk justifying the action taken by the Tahsildar. Anyhow, the legality and

correctness of Ext.P5 order is the subject matter in an appeal. Therefore, the

writ court is not expected to delve deep into the issues raised by the

petitioner when a proceeding is pending before the statutory appellate

authority. Therefore, I am not traversing through the counter affidavit filed

by the second respondent or the statement filed by the third

respondent/Tahsildar.

7. Since the matter was pending before this court for several years it

is better that the appeal itself is disposed of by the authority.

8. In that view of the matter, after hearing learned counsel for the

petitioner Sri.Abdul Kareem.P.S., learned Government Pleader Sri.Riyal

Devassy and the learned counsel for the Panchayat Sri.K.M.Varghese and WP(C) NO. 32585 OF 2016 :: 5 ::

perusing the pleading and materials on record, this writ petition is disposed

of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi to finalise Ext.P7

appeal at the earliest and at any rate within three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

9. The petitioner is also permitted to produce any additional

documents, if any, in order to substantiate the appeal within three weeks

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

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE jes WP(C) NO. 32585 OF 2016 :: 6 ::

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE RESURVEY SUB DIVISION ON RECORD OF THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY.

EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT PAID BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3: A COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE OF THE PATTAYAM RECEIVED BACK FROM THE TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR.

EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.2.2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.20691 OF 2008.

EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.6.2010 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TAHASILDAR.

EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 22.3.2016 EVIDENCING THE COMMUNICATION OF EXHIBIT P7 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, ERNAKULAM TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAMAKUTY DATED 3.8.2007 EXHIBIT P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 25.8.2007 BEARING NO.G3-2212/07 OF THE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT SURVEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 10/8/2020 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KADAMAKKUDY GRAMA PANCHAYATH RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 21.8.2019 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAMAKKUDY.

EXHIBIT R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.9.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R4(c) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 3.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R4(d) TRUE COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 26.11.2019 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.

// TRUE COPY //

P.S. TO JUDGE