Kerala High Court
Jessy Roy vs The District Collector on 4 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 4™ DAY GF JULY 2022 / ISTH ASHADHA, 1944
| WRIC) NO. 4485 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
HESSY ROY
AGED 42 YEARS
wW/G. LATE ROY GEORGE, PUTRANPURAKKAN HOUSE, ADIMALT
KARA, MANNANKANDAM VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, TOUKRT
OYSTRICT.
BY ADYS .
KN ABRTLASH
SUNTL NATR PALAKKAT
NLA. ANAMNAD SAHEER
P.B,MUNAMNED AJEESH
RITHIK S&S. ANAND
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
IDUKKT DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE. IDUKKT, PIN - SHgeas.
a THE THANASTLDAR
DEVIRULAN TALUK, TOUKRE DISTRICT, PIN - 685613.
3 THE TAHSILDAR( LR}
DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKIT DISTRICT, PIN - S85815.
4 TRE VELLAGE OFFICER
ROTTARANBOOR VILLAGE, DEVERULAM TACUK, IBUKRKI
OQSTRICT, PIN - 885561.
5 THE REVENUE OTYISTONAL OFFICER
VEVIRULAN, ZOQUKKY OISTRICT, PIN - GSS615.
§ LAND REVENUE JQINT COMMISSIONER AND SPECTAL QFFICER
KURINUGIMALA, LAND REVENUE CONMISSTONERATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAN, PIN - 892007,
THES WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
O4.07. 2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WE(C} NO. 4485 OF 2082 2
JUDGMENT
This writ petition has been fled challenging Ext.P19 order
issued by the 1" respondent - District Collector.
2. ido not require to write a defall judgment in this case
because, through the order in Contempt Case (3No0.2178 of
2021, l have already dealt with the aspects impelled herein and
have issued certain directions.
Therefore, | allow this writ pefition in terms of the
directions in Contempt Case (C)No.2178 of 2021 and I order
that the sare shall form a part of this judgment also.
Sil / »
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
NC/4 7
PETITIONER EXHISITS
Exhinit
Exhibit
EXALDLE
Exhibit
EXALBIC |
EXHLLE |
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhinit
Exhibit
Exhibit
EXALBLL
Pa
Re
Pa
Ry
PS
PS
P28
PIA
Pi2
THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED
NO.1642/92 DATED 36.87.1992 OF THE SRO
DEVIKULAM, IDUKKT.
THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED
NO.1648/92 DATED 30.07.1992 OF THE SRO
DEVIKULAM, IDURKT.
THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED
NO.1643/82 DATED 30.97.1992 OF THE SRO
DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI.
THE TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE pEED
NO. 1642/92 DATED 30,87.1992 OF THE SRO
DEVIKULAM, IDURKI.
THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FILE, CONSISTS
OF THE ISSUANCE OF PATTA NO NUMBER RC-
728/64 ON THE FILES OF RDO DEVIKULAY,
RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT ALONG WITH A TYPED
cory,
THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FILE CONSISTS
OF THE ISSUANCE OF PATTA NO NUMBER RC-
729/84 ON TRE FILES OF RDO DEVIKULAM,
RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT ALONG WITH A TYPED
COPY.
THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FILE, CONSISTS
GF THE ISSUANCE OF PATTA NO NUMBER RC-
730/64 ON THE FILES OF RDO DEVIKULAM,
RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT ALONG WITH A TYPED
COPY.
THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FILE, CONSISTS
QF THE ISSUANCE OF PATTA NO NUMBER RO-
732/64 ON THE FILES OF RDO DEVIXULAM,
RECEIVED UNDER RTE ACT ALONG WITH A TYPED
cory.
THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE RELAVANT
PORTION OF THE REGISTER UNDER LAND
ASSIGNMENT RULES MAINTAINED BY THE SECOND
RESPONDENT, RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT.
THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
@4.16. 2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 197 RESPONDENT.
THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGNENT DATED
15.10.2029 IN WPC - 16598/2020 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
THE TRUE COPY GF THE REPORT 30.12.2020
SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE
WPIC) NO. 4485 OF 2022 &
EXALBLE
Exhibir
EXALDLE F
EXALBIL
Exhibit |
EXALBLE
Exhibit
ExAEpiL
ExXAAbIC
EXRLBLE |
Exhibit
Exhibic
Exhibit
EXHALE
Exhibit -
Exhapit
BIS
Pid
P18
fen
And
PIs
BEQ
Pap
R22
P28
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
THE TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT'S
ONDER NUNBER §3-8635/2019 DATED
1.82. 2822,
THE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
NUMBER SS 738 /A2/201S/REVENUE DATED
13.48.2017 WAS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT
US KERALA.
THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OATES
O4,8G. 2026 WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN TNE
PETETIONER'S SISTER-IN-LAW SHT. ALLY AND
ONE MR. JISMON AND OTHERS.
THE TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT RATER
84.08.2020 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE
PETITIONER ANG ONE MR. JISMON AND OTHERS.
TRE TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL REPORT DATED
"4,323.29 TSSUED BY THE CHRISTIAN MEDICAL
COLLEGE VELLORE.
YHE TRUE COPY OF TRE JUDGMENT DATED
27,89 2022 IN WPCC} 14938/2021 OF THIS
HON BLE COURT.
FRE TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. OCTOK/S021-C2
BATED 19.01.2022 ISSUED BY THE IST
RESPONDENT ,
THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEGINGS NO.
Cie 738085 / 2017 RATER 30.87.2918 ISSUED AY
THE RESPONDENT |
THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NG.
CliS/SSOBS/2OL7 DATED 18,601. 2027 ISSues
BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRUKKI.
THE TRUE COPY OF THE GRDER NO. 83~
RES/SULBYSRDIS DATED 29/12/2029 .
THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO, 83-
S7SHH/2G18/RDIS DATED 2E/12 2018.
THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CS-
L446/SO19/RDIS DATED 17/89/8018,
TRE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NG. BS-
273/287 8/RDTS DATED Sa /8G/ 2028,
THE TRUE COPY OF THE GRRER ND. 83-
LeVSPSG19/ ROIS DATED TS/OS/3049.
TRE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BS-S8S4/2019
DATED 27/12/2021 ISSUED By THE 2NB
RESPONDENT TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
EDURKT .
THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT B8S-8635/3019
DATED O1/G1/2822 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT .
WIC} 8O. 4488 OF 2022 3
ExXmApit PSs TRE TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
{RT} NO. SOROS 2019/RD DATED S8/1 0/2919
TSSUED BY THE SOVERNMENT OF KERALA.
iN YHE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAN
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 47 pay OF JuLy 2822 / ISTH ASHADHA, L844
CON CASE(C) NO. 2378 OF 2824
ASAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPI{C) 14935/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETETIONER :
JESSY ROY
AGED 42 YEARS
W/O. LATE ROY GEORGE, PUTNANPURAKKAN HOUSE, ADIMALT
KABA, BANNAMKSNDAN VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM THALUS,
TOURKY DYSTRICY - 885 565,
BY ADVE.
SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
RN ABHTLASH
M.A. ANAMMAD SAHEES®
PLS. MUBAMNED AQEESH
RYFHIR S&S ANAND
RESPONDENT >
SHEESA GEORGE TAS
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT RNOQWN TO THE PETITIONER,
WORKING AS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
RUYILIMALA, PAINAV P.O., JTDNIKKE DISTRICT,
PIN ~ 885 603.
BY ADV ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA
SRT JAFFAR KHAN-SR GP
FHIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE {CIVIL} HAVING CONE UP FOR
ADMISSION ON @4.07. 2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges that, in spite of the specific
observations and directions of this Court in the judgment dated
27.09.2021, no orders have been issued by the respondent.
2. However, the learned Government Pleader submitted
that the afore assertions are not correct and that an order,
dated 10.01.2022, has been issued by the respondent
authorizing issuance of a new 'patta' In favour of the petitioner
showing the correct Vilage. He argued that, therefore, this
contempt of court case has now become unnecessary of
prosecution.
3. SrLAbhiiash K.N. - learned counsel for the petitioner,
on the other hand, submitted that attempt of the respondent
appears to be to apply the amended law against his client,
under the guise of issuing a fresh 'patta'; but added that if they
undertake before this Court that the extent or the boundaries
of the property will not be altered in the new 'patta' to be
issued, then his clent will not stand in the way of appropriate
orders bemg issued by this Court in such direction.
4. 1, therefore, asked Srijaffar Khan - learned Senior
Government Pleader on this issue and he submitted that
cancellation of the existing 'patta' and issuance of a new one
has been necessitated on account of Rule 84 of the Kerala Land
Assignment Rules; and that, therefore, if this Court is so
inclined, the land In question claimed by the petitioner will be
shown with the same attributes as are available in the present
'patta', including its extent and boundaries, He undertook that
this will be done by the competent Authority without any delay.
3. This is thus perspicuocus that pelitioner does not
require to harbour any further apprehension because, through
the order dated 10.01.2022, the respondent will now issue a
fresh 'patta' to her, showing the correct Village, but without
any change in the extent or the boundaries of the property.
in such circumstances and recording the above
undertaking of Sri Jaffar Khan, I close this contempt case
without any further orders.
Needless to say and to reiteratingly clarify, action as per
the undertaking of Srijaffar Khan shall be completed by the
competent Authority de hors the present law or the stipulations
regarding the extent that can be granted to a new allottee,
because, as | have already declared in the judgment in
question, the controversy arose not because of any faull that
can be attributed to her, bul on account of a mistake that
appear to have been committed by the officials themselves.
SO/ =
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/4.7
APPENDIX OF CON. CASE(C) NO. 2178/2024
TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.C12/38085/
20:7 DATED SOQ7.2018 ISSUED BY THE
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NOLS 73S/AS201LSREVENUER DATED 30.10.2617
ISSUED BY THE ADDITINOAL CHIEF SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
NOCUSS8085 2017 DATED TST 2DL7ISSUD RY THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DUKE! TQ VARICUS
TAHSILDARS.
