P K Mammikutty vs The State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 5313 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 33095 OF 2018
PETITIONER:

    1       P K MAMMIKUTTY, S/O KUTTIYALI HAJI,
            POOLAKKAL KAMADOYIL HOUSE, OLAVATTUR P.O, KONDOTTY
            TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

    2       ADDL.P2. SUBAIDA.P.K., AGED 52 YEARS
            W/O. LATE POOLAKKAL KOMADOYIL MAMMIKUTTY, KOMADOYIL
            HOUSE, AROOR, OLAVATTUR.P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM
            DISTRICT-673638.

    3       ADDL.P3. NOORJAHAN.P.K., AGED 35 YEARS
            D/O. LATE POOLAKKAL KOMADOYIL MAMMIKUTTY, KOMADOYIL
            HOUSE, AROOR, OLAVATTUR.P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM
            DISTRICT-673638.

    4       ADDL.P4. SHABEERALI.P.K., AGED 33 YEARS
            S/O. LATE POOLAKKAL KOMADOYIL MAMMIKUTTY, KOMADOYIL
            HOUSE, AROOR, OLAVATTUR.P.O., KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM
            DISTRICT-673638.


            (ADDITIONAL PETITIONERS P2 TO P4 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER
            DATED 5-12-2019 IN I.A.NO.2/2019)

            BY ADVS.
            P.CHANDRASEKHAR
            K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL, CGC
            V.A.HARITHA
            SIDHARTH B PRASAD
            R.NANDAGOPAL
            D.SREEKANTH
            GAYATHRI MURALEEDHARAN



RESPONDENTS:

    1       THE STATE OF KERALA
            REP BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REVENUE
            DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001.
 WP(C) NO. 33095 OF 2018
                                     2


     2          THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
                MALAPPURAM - 676 505.

     3          THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
                TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676101.

     4          THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR,
                KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673638.

     5          THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
                CHERUKAVU VILLAGE,
                MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 673637.

     6          THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
                PULIKKAL VILLAGE,
                MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673637.

            BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

            SR GP-K.AMMINIKUTTY


         THIS    WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION        ON   20.05.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 33095 OF 2018
                                 3


                              JUDGMENT

Among the various contentions raised and impelled by

the petitioners, the primary is that Ext.P11 order was issued

based on a report obtained by the Government behind their

back, after the hearing of the matter was completed as

ordered by this Court earlier.

2. Sri.Muhammed Ravuf, learned counsel for the

petitioners, pointed out that, in Ext.P11, it is specifically

recorded by the Government that after hearing of his clients

was completed, another detailed report was obtained by the

District Collector, but that copy of the same was never

favoured to his clients, thus he being kept in the dark about

all such proceedings. The learned counsel argued

vehemently that this amounts to travesty to justice, since the

established procedure has been blatantly violated, leading to

a complete break down of the principles of natural justice.

3. In response, the learned Government Pleader -

Sri.K.M.Faisal, submitted that Ext.P11 specifically records

that the first petitioner was given a proper hearing and that,

in order to ensure that all the factual inputs were placed on

record without error, a report was thereafter obtained from WP(C) NO. 33095 OF 2018

the District Collector. He contended that this report of the

District Collector was only to complement the proceedings

and not to arrogate it in any manner; and therefore, that the

contention of the petitioners, that a copy of the same ought

to have been served on them before Ext.P11 could have been

issued, is without basis. He, therefore, supported Ext.P11,

attempting to show me that even on the merits of the matter,

the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

4. I do not propose to go into the merits of the rival

contentions of the parties because, prima facie, I am of the

view that Ext.P11 could have been issued only after every

report relied upon by the Government was favoured to the

petitioners. This is the fundamental pre-requisite of the rule

of fair play and the compliance of natural justice. I am

persuaded to this view also for the reason that the impugned

order itself records that, after the petitioners have been

heard, a detailed report was obtained by the District

Collector. Since this report does not appear to have been

served on the petitioners - it being not so stated in Ext.P11 -

I find justification to the argument of Sri.Muhammed Ravuf

that his clients have been put to prejudice. WP(C) NO. 33095 OF 2018

5. In such circumstances and without entering into the

merits of the dialectical contentions of the parties or into the

validity of the contents of Ext.P11, I am certain that the

entire issue will require to be reconsidered by the

Government, after every report relied upon in Ext.P11 is

served on the petitioners.

6. Resultantly, I allow this writ petition, thus setting

aside Ext.P11; with a consequential direction to the

Government to reconsider the matter, after serving copies of

all the reports referred to and relied upon in Ext.P11 to the

petitioners, which shall be done within a period of one month

from today.

7. Once the copies of the reports are so served on the

petitioners, the Government will afford a fresh opportunity of

being heard to them and to the other affected parties, if any;

thus culminating in an apposite final order, as expeditiously

as is possible, but not later than four months thereafter.

At this time, Sri.Muhammed Ravuf intervened to say

that if his clients find it necessary to file additional pleadings

before the Government, based on the reports to be served on

them, such opportunity may be reserved. It is needless to WP(C) NO. 33095 OF 2018

say that such opportunity is always available to the

petitioners and they will be at liberty to do so within the time

frames which the competent Authority will afford them, after

the reports are made available.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 33095 OF 2018

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 33095/2018

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.997/1948.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION 3.7.2014 BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.H3-10687/14 DATED 2.2.2015 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E-1823/2015 DATED 16.9.2015 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 27.12.2016.

EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 26.12.2016 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B5.55733/15/K.DIS DATED 30.11.2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.2.2018 IN WPC.NO.3338 OF 2018 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 26.3.2018 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT G.O(RT)NO.3833/2018/REV.DATED 13.9.2018.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPIES OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 17-04-2012.

WP(C) NO. 33095 OF 2018

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE FOR THE PERIOD 01.01.1948 TO 31.12.1950, DATED 15.06.2015.