C.P.Prakasan vs M.V.Kunhiraman
2022 Latest Caselaw 10309 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
        FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944
                        OP(C) NO. 1431 OF 2015
           A.A. NO. 102/2011 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR
PETITIONER:

            LATHA
            AGED 49 YEARS
            W/O.C.P.RAMACHANDRAN,THAZHATHVEETIL,PERINGOME AMSOM
            DESOM,PERINGOME,KANNUR DISTRICT 670 307.

            BY ADV SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE



RESPONDENTS:

1 M.V. KUNHIRAMAN AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAPPA, RETD.DISTRICT REGISTRAR, RESIDING AT K.P.NAGAR, PERINGOME AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 307.

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -1.

BY ADVS.

SRI.M.SASINDRAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. S.L SYLAJA

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2022, ALONG WITH OP(C).1433/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(C) NOS. 1431 & 1433 OF 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944 OP(C) NO. 1433 OF 2015 A.A.No. 103/2011 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR PETITIONER:

C.P.PRAKASAN AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE KADAYAKKARA DAMODARAN, VAYAKKARA AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADV SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE

RESPONDENTS:

1 M.V.KUNHIRAMAN AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAPPA, RETD. DISTRICT REGISTRAR, RESIDING AT K.P.NAGAR, PERINGOME AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670307.

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR-670002.

BY ADVS.

SRI.M.SASINDRAN GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. S.L SYLAJA

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2022, ALONG WITH OP(C).1431/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP(C) NOS. 1431 & 1433 OF 2015

Dated this the 7th day of October, 2022

COMMON JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the common order passed in I.A

No.314/2013 in A.A. No.103/2011 and I.A. No.315/2013 in

A.A. No.102/2011 of the Appellate Authority (LR) Kannur,

the supplemental respondents 5 and 6 in the appeals have

filed the original petitions under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. The respondents in the original

petitions are the appellant and the third respondent/State

in the appeals. As the parties and the subject matter are

the same, they are being disposed of by the common

judgment.

2. The common case of the petitioners in the original

petitions is that: they are the supplemental respondents 5

and 6 in the above appeals preferred by the first

respondent, who was not a party in the suo-motu

proceedings of the Land Tribunal, Payyannur. The

property involved in the suo-motu proceedings originally

belonged to Kuttoor Vengayil Kalyanikutty Amma, the OP(C) NOS. 1431 & 1433 OF 2015

mother of the petitioner in O.P.(C)No.1431/2015 and

Kadeakkara Damodaran, the father of the petitioner in

O.P.(C)No.1433/2015. The purchase certificates were

issued in favour of the above named persons as per

S.M.Nos.263/2007 and 262/2007, respectively. They

assigned the properties in favour of one Ramesan as per

document No.377/2009 of the SRO, Peringom. The first

respondent, who has no personal interest in the matter,

claiming to be the protector of public land, preferred the

above appeals. The District Collector, Kannur, filed

counter statements in both the appeals, inter-alia,

contending that the appeals are not maintainable. During

the pendency of the appeals, the mother and the father of

the petitioners died. The petitioners were impleaded as

the supplemental respondents. The petitioners questioned

the maintainability of the appeals by filing I.A. Nos.315 &

314 of 2013 in the appeals, respectively. The applications

were objected by the first respondent. The appellate

authority, by the impugned Ext.P5 common order, OP(C) NOS. 1431 & 1433 OF 2015

dismissed the above applications. Ext.P5 common order

is erroneous and wrong. Hence, the original petitions.

3. The second respondent - State - has filed a

statement dated 29.11.2017 through the District

Collector, Kannur, inter alia, stating that the Vigilance

and the Anti Corruption Bureau had conducted a Quick

Verification Report regarding the accusation levelled by

the first respondent against the revenue officials. The

Vigilance Officer, after a detailed enquiry, has found the

accusation to be correct. On the basis of the report, V.C.

No.3/2014 has been registered against the Revenue

Officials and few others for offences punishable under the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case is pending

before the Vigilance Court, Kannur. It is only because the

appeals have been stayed by this Court, the above facts

have not been placed before the appellate authority. The

second respondent may be permitted to place the

materials before the appellate authority.

4. Heard; Sri.Mathew Kuriakose, the learned OP(C) NOS. 1431 & 1433 OF 2015

counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.M.Sasindran,

the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent

and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the

State.

5. The point is whether there is any error or illegality

in Ext.P5 order.

6. The grievance of the petitioners in the original

petitions is that the first respondent has no locus standi

to file the appeals before the appellate authority because

he is a total stranger.

7. On an analysis of the pleadings and materials on

record, it is seen that the first respondent has filed the

appeals as a whistle blower, principally for the reason

that he found there was a collusion between the

petitioners and the revenue officials in issuing the

purchase certificates in favour of the predecessor-in-

interest of the petitioners.

8. The appellate authority by relying on the decision

of this Court in Thayyil Muhammed v. Koorimanni OP(C) NOS. 1431 & 1433 OF 2015

Pattiyl Showkath Ali and Others[2014(4) KLT 366] and

Vareed Jacob and Others v. E.A. Jayakumar and

Others [2010(3) KLT 389] concluded that the first

respondent is competent to file the appeals because any

aggrieved person can file an appeal against an order of

the Land Tribunal as provided under Section 102 of the

Land Reforms Act.

9. Now, in addition to the finding of the appellate

authority, the statement filed by the second respondent

makes it clearer than crystal, that the assertions made by

the first respondent in the appeals is prima facie true and

genuine. Even otherwise, it is trite, as held by this Court

in the above cited precedents that any aggrieved person

can file an appeal under Section 102 of the Act.

10. It is to be born in mind that the property is

Government land. If it was not for the first respondent,

perhaps the Government may have lost the above land.

Despite the revelation made in the report of the Vigilance

Officer the Government has not taken any effective steps OP(C) NOS. 1431 & 1433 OF 2015

to get the purchase certificates set aside, I am of the view

that the first respondent is to be permitted to prosecute

the appeals and the Government be directed to change its

stand before the appellate authority, in consonance with

the statement filed before this Court. Furthermore, in

view of the unearthing of a fraud, the Government shall

take effective methods to protect the public property.

The revelations in the statement filed before this

Court is a serious matter, which cannot be taken lightly

by the Government any more. I do not find any error or

infirmity in Ext.P5 common order warranting interference

by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India. I confirm Ext.P5 order and dismiss the original

petitions. The Revenue Secretary, Government of Kerala

is directed to take necessary action as directed above, as

expeditiously as possible.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rmm10/10/2022 OP(C) NOS. 1431 & 1433 OF 2015

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1433/2015

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN A.A. NO.103/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 6/12/2014 FILED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR IN A.A NO.103/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN IA NO.314/2013 IN A.A NO.103/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES OF ARGUMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE CONTESTING RESPONDENTS IN IA NO.314/2013 IN A.A NO.103/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 11/6/2015 IN IA NO.314/2013 IN A.A NO.103/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR OP(C) NOS. 1431 & 1433 OF 2015

APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1431/2015

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN A.A NO. 102 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR.

EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 06/12/2014 FILED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR IN A.A NO. 102 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), KANNUR.

EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN I.A 315 OF 2013 IN A.A 102 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR.

EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES OF ARGUMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE CONTESTING RESPONDENTS IN I.A 315 OF 2013 IN A.A NO. 10 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR.

EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 11/06/2015 IN I.A 315 OF 2013 IN A.A NO. 102 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR.