Southern Field Ventures Pvt. Ltd vs Th E State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 5366 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. 28184 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

            SOUTHERN FIELD VENTURES PVT. LTD.
            REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
            XAVI MANO MATHEW, AGED 53 YEARS,
            S/O. LATE JOHN MATHEW, RESIDING AT
            PANCHIKKAL HOUSE, D-10, TAGORE NAGAR,
            VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014

            BY ADVS.
            K.R.SYAM SEKHAR
            P.V.ANIL
            V.S.LIJA


RESPONDENTS:

    1       TH E STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
            GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
            THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

    2       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
            COLLECTORATE, 2ND FLOOR,, CIVIL STATION,
            KUDAPPANAKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 043

            BY ADVS.

            SPL.GP-SRI TB HOOD


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 28184/21
                                       2

                           JUDGMENT

Amidst the various allegations, assertions and averments

made and urged in this Writ Petition, Sri.K.R.Shyam Sekhar -

learned counsel for the petitioner, confined his plea that the 2 nd

respondent - District Collector be directed to dispose of Ext.P6

Statutory Revision, filed against the order of the Revenue

Divisional Officer dated 03.10.2007, within a time frame to be

fixed by this Court.

2. Sri.T.B.Hood - learned Special Government Pleader,

submitted that the reason why the Revenue Divisional Officer has

cancelled the 'Patta' of the property involved in this case is not

merely because it is covered by an 'EFL' Notification. He

submitted that there are various other issues involved, but added

that if this Court is to only direct the District Collector to

consider Ext.P6 on its merits, he will not stand in the way;

however, praying that this Court may not make any affirmative

declarations in favour of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever.

He then added that even going by the pleadings on record, Ext.P6 WPC 28184/21

does not appear to be the original Revision filed, but only a

subsequent one.

3. In reply, Sri.K.R.Shyam Sekhar explained that the

original Revision filed was missing from the files of the official

respondents and that it is, therefore, that his client preferred

Ext.P6, by way of abundant caution, in the year 2019.

4. Whatever be the dialectical contentions between the

parties, it is evident that cancellation of the 'Patta' has been

made by the Revenue Divisional Officer as early as in the year

2007. Obviously, therefore, this Court cannot enter into the merits

of the said order at the first instance since the petitioner has

already invoked his statutory remedy.

5. That said, the question whether Ext.P6 is the Revision

first filed, or a second one, is not of any importance because,

whatever be the disputation on the same, it can always be

construed as a first one subject, of course, to the question of

limitation and such other.

Resultantly, I order this Writ Petition to the limited extent

of directing the 2nd respondent - District Collector, to take up WPC 28184/21

Ext.P6 Revision Petition filed by the petitioner and to dispose it

of, 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.

At this time, Sri.T.B.Hood intervened to say that, as has

been averred in the statement filed on behalf of the 2 nd

respondent, the proceedings before the Taluk Land Board is still

pending.

I do not propose to speak on this, but certainly, this is also

an issue that can be considered by the District Collector while the

afore exercise is completed.

Sd/-

RR                                      DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                              JUDGE
 WPC 28184/21


                APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28184/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1          TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT BY NO 22940
                    DATED 02-07-2005
Exhibit P1A         TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT BY NO 12602
                    DATED 10-07-2006
Exhibit P1B         TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT BY NO 8090
                    DATED 19-04-2007
Exhibit P2          TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05-01-2016
                    BY NO EFL 10-1114/2007 PASSED BY THE
                    CUSTODIAN
Exhibit P3          TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P9C) NO.

32107/16 DATED 23-08-2017 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ERAATUM NOTIFICATION DATED 19-02-2019 ISSUED BY THE CUSTODIAN Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN O.A 1/2016 AND 2/2016 OF THE FOREST TRIBUNAL KOLLAM DATED 30-05-2019 Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 20-11-2019 Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-07-

1988 IN CRP 2346/1984 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15-10-2019 Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION GIVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF FOREST BEARING NO. C3- 2506/2016 DATED 27-11-2019 Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE STRIKE NOTICE DATED 18-

11-2021 GIVEN BY THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF CITU, INFORMING THE PETITIONER ABOUT THE AGITATION WITHIN THE ESTATE Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAM DAILY DATED 12-11-2021 Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY DATED 13-11-2021 Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE NEWSPAPER REPORT WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALA MANORAM DAILY DATED 18-11-2021