Gopinathan vs The District Collector
2022 Latest Caselaw 82 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 13TH POUSHA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 30717 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

            GOPINATHAN, S/O. SANKARAN.V.C., VENMANISSERY HOUSE,
            PUTHENVELIKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 594.

            BY ADVS.
            K.VINAYA
            RAVI KRISHNAN



RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
            CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

    2       LAND TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
            OFFICE OF LAND TRIBUNAL, TRIPUNITHURA P.O.,
            ERNAKULAM-682 031.

    3       THE VILLAGE OFFICER PUTHENVELIKKARA,
            PUTHENVELIKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 594.

            BY ADV.SMT.MABLE .C.KURIAN, SR.G.P.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 30717 OF 2021
                                    -2-

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

impugning Ext.P7 order issued by the 2nd respondent

- Land Tribunal, Ernakulam. He says that Ext.P7 is

egregiously improper for various reasons, but

primarily that it has been issued without

affording him an opportunity of being heard.

2. Smt.K.Vinaya - learned counsel for the

petitioner, explained her client's case saying

that he is holding 5 cents of land in Sy.No.398/9

of 'Puthenvelikkara Village', which had been taken

over by his father for cultivation from the

'Janmi', whose name is mentioned in the pleadings;

and that after the death of his father, he

inherited the property and made an application for

a Purchase Certificate before the 2nd respondent.

She pointed out that even though the said

application was numbered as OA 59 of 2011 and the WP(C) NO. 30717 OF 2021

jurisdictional Authorized Officer and the Village

Officer submitted reports in his favour, the same

has been rejected by the Tribunal, through Ext.P7,

in a cursory manner, without assigning any reason

and merely saying that the property is a 'Kulam'

(pond).

3. The learned counsel submitted that there

is no dispute regarding the nature of the property

and, therefore, that the Land Tribunal could not

have rejected her client's application in this

fashion. She, therefore, reiteratingly prayed that

this writ petition be allowed.

4. In response, Smt.Mable C.Kurian - learned

Senior Government Pleader, submitted that, as is

evident from Ext.P7, the Land Tribunal appears to

have found that the property in question is a

'Kulam' (pond); and that it is perhaps, therefore,

that it has dismissed the petitioner's

application.

WP(C) NO. 30717 OF 2021

5. Even when I hear the learned Senior

Government Pleader as afore, I am afraid that I

cannot find favour with Ext.P7 because, as rightly

stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner ,

it has been issued without affording an

opportunity of being heard to her client.

Moreover, even the petitioner does not have a case

that the property is not a pond; and, in fact, it

is his specific case, as has been seen above,

that the property is a pond, which had been taken

over by his father for cultivation from the

original 'Janmi'. Obviously, therefore, the nature

of the property could not have been a reason to

reject the application in the manner, as has been

done in Ext.P7.

In the afore circumstances, I order this

writ petition and set aside Ext.P7; with a

consequential direction to the 2nd respondent -

Land Tribunal, to reconsider the petitioner's WP(C) NO. 30717 OF 2021

application in terms of law, after affording him

an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in

an appropriate order and necessary action thereon,

as expeditiously as is possible, but not later

than four months from the date of receipt of a

copy of this judgment.

I make it clear that I have not entered into

the merits of any of the contentions of the

petitioner and that all of them are left open to

be decided by the Land Tribunal appropriately when

the afore exercise is completed.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 30717 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30717/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SY NO.398/9 OF PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE

EXHIBIT P1A A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY COMPRISED IN SY NO.398/9 OF PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 19.8.2013 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER PUTHENVELIKKARA

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 17.6.2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER PUTHENVELIKKARA

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY VILLAGE OFFICER PUTHENVELIKKARA DATED 3.5.2016

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY SPECIAL REVENUE INSPECTOR DATED 18.7.2011

EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 26.4.2011

EXHIBIT P7 A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.1.2019 IN OA NO.59/2011 ON THE FILES OF LAND TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE