Rethnam vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 5727 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
      FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                      WP(C) NO. 12840 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

             RETHNAM
             AGED 67 YEARS
             S/O. BHADRA BOYAN, VADHYAR CHALLA, PAMPAMPALLAM,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 678621
             BY ADVS.
             JACOB SEBASTIAN
             K.V.WINSTON
             ANU JACOB


RESPONDENT/S:

     1       STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (B)
             DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
             DISTRICT, PIN - 695001
     2       THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PALAKKAD
             REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, REVENUE DIVISIONAL
             OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
             PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   27.05.2022,   THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 12840 OF 2022
                                 2

                             JUDGMENT

The limited plea of the petitioner is that the 2 nd respondent -

Taluk Land Board be directed to issue appropriate orders on

Ext.P8 application, preferred by him under the provisions of

Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, adverting to

Exts.P1 to P6.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner - Shri.Jacob

Sebastian further explained that the Certificate of Purchase has

already been issued in favour of his client's predecessor-in-

interest, but his client is being interdicted from using the

properties in a profitable manner, which has led him to prefer

Ext.P8 application, seeking to modify Ext.P7. He, therefore,

reiteratingly prayed that Ext.P8 be directed to be considered

without any further delay.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.Mable

C.Kurian, in response, submitted that this writ petition is not

maintainable because, as is evident from Ext.P9, the petitioner's

application has already been rejected since he did not produce

necessary documents. She submitted that, therefore, the WP(C) NO. 12840 OF 2022

petitioner cannot seek further consideration of Ext.P8 in any

manner through this writ petition.

4. Shri.Jacob Sebastian - learned counsel for the petitioner,

in reply, submitted that Ext.P9 order, in fact, rejects his client's

Ext.P8 application holding that the earlier Ext.P7 has concluded

the issue. He submitted that Ext.P9, to the extent to which it

relates his client, has been issued without hearing him. He,

therefore, reiteratingly prayed that the reliefs sought for in this

writ petition be granted, showing me that Ext.P7 has also been

sought to be quashed.

5. I have considered the afore submissions and I must say

that Ext.P7 takes into account several claims, including that of

the petitioner. Of course, the challenge of the petitioner to the

said document is only as regards the properties claimed by him

and not to any other. The question whether Ext.P7 has issued, in

the case of the petitioner, with notice to him, is not clear

therefrom and I am, therefore, of the view that his Ext.P8

application, preferred under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land

Reforms Act, will require to be considered by the Land Board on WP(C) NO. 12840 OF 2022

its merits, rather than rejected it through Ext.P9 in the manner

as has been done.

Solely for the reasons above and to facilitate a proper

consideration of the petitioner's claims, I allow this writ petition

and set aside Ext.P9; with a consequential direction to the 2 nd

respondent - Taluk Land Board to reconsider Ext.P8, after

adverting to the petitioner's specific contention that in Ext.P7 he

had not been given an opportunity of being heard.

I make it clear that I am choosing not to quash Ext.P7 even

as regards the petitioner at this stage, but I leave it to the Land

Board to decide whether any modification of the same is

required, if it is to be found that he had not been heard at the

time when it was issued.

It also goes without saying that in all other respects Ext.P7

would remain unaltered and that any modification to it, even if it

is warranted in future, would be as regards the petitioner's claim

and nothing else.

The afore exercise shall be completed by the Taluk Land WP(C) NO. 12840 OF 2022

Board as expeditiously as is possible, after affording a fresh

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, but not later than

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

This writ petition is thus ordered.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/27.5 WP(C) NO. 12840 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12840/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED NUMBER 3583/2001 OF THE SRO PALAKKAD DATED 04.08.2001.

Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED NUMBER 3679/2001 OF THE SRO PALAKKAD DATED 13.08.2001.

Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.1313/1977 ISSUED BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL- II, KUZHALMANNAM DATED 10.05.1977.

Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED SETTLEMENT DEED NO.713/1981 OF SRO PALAKKAD DATED 13.02.1981.

Exhibit-P5 A TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED PARTITION DEED NUMBER 1556/1997 OF SRO PALAKKAD DATED 14.03.1997.

Exhibit-P6 A TRUE COPY OF REGISTERED RELEASE DEED NO.2966/2000 OF SRO PALAKKAD DATED 31.05.2000.

Exhibit-P7 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 05.02.2015 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit-P8 A TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 25.01.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit-P9 A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 23.03.2022 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.