Somasekharan Nair vs The Revenue Divisional ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10099 Ker

WP(C) NO. 24443 OF 2010             1



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
 THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 24TH BHADRA, 1944
                          WP(C) NO. 24443 OF 2010
PETITIONER/S:

              SOMASEKHARAN NAIR
              S/O.LATE P.G.GOPALA PILLAI,, KURUNTHOTTATHIL HOUSE,
              KUMBAZHA POST,, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

              BY ADV SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB


RESPONDENT/S:
    1     THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,ADOOR

      2       THE TAHSILDAR KOZHENCHERRY.

      3       THE VILLAGE OFFICER
              PATHANAMTHITTA (FOR KOZHENCHERRY TALUK).

      4       THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR PATHANAMTHITTA.


OTHER PRESENT:


                 SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, SR.GP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 24443 OF 2010              2




                        P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                    ---------------------------------------
                       W.P.(C.) No. 24443 of 2010
                     --------------------------------------
             Dated this the 15th day of September, 2022


                               JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

(i) "To call for the records leading to Ext.P12 order and quash the original by the issuance of a writ of certiorari.

(ii) To issue such other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts of the case, including the costs of the petitioner in this proceeding." [SIC]

2. The writ petition is filed mainly challenging Ext.P12

order passed by the 1st respondent-RDO. The said order is

passed on Ext.P4 appeal. Ext.P4 appeal was filed against

Ext.P3 order and Ext.P3(a) notice. The grievance of the

petitioner is that Ext.P12 order is passed by the 1 st

respondent without considering the grievance of the

petitioner in the written submission which is submitted as

evident by Ext.P7. According to the petitioner, RDO based on

the report of the Village Officer rejected the appeal without

considering the contention of the petitioner that there is

personal enmity towards the petitioner from the Village

Officer. The contention of the petitioner is that the appellate

authority has not considered the contention of the petitioner

regarding the enmity of the Village Officer towards the

petitioner. It is conceded that the petitioner paid the amount

demanded as per Exts.P3 and P3(a) on protest. The petitioner

is aggrieved by Ext.P12 order.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Government Pleader.

4. The counsel for the petitioner reiterated his

contentions. The Government Pleader submitted that there is

nothing to interfere with Ext.P12 order. The Government

Pleader submitted that it is a speaking order based on the

factual situation. Therefore, this Court may not interfere with

the orders passed by the fact finding authority.

5. This Court considered the contentions of the

petitioner and the Government Pleader. A perusal of Ext.P12

order will show that it is an order passed based on the report

from the Village Officer also. But the Revenue Divisional

Officer is an appellate authority and the order is passed

based on the report of the fact finding authority. This Court

invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India cannot decide this matter because there are reports

from the fact finding authority. If the petitioner is aggrieved

by Ext.P12, the petitioner is free to submit a representation

before the District Collector narrating all his grievance and

there can be a direction to the District Collector to consider

the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner. The amount deposited by the petitioner will be

subject to the final decision taken by the District Collector.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the

following directions :

1) The petitioner is free to submit a representation along

with the copy of this writ petition narrating his

grievance to the 4th respondent-District Collector within

one month from today.

2) If such a representation is received, the 4 th respondent

will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in it

after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner

as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three

months from the date of receipt of the representation.

3) The amount already paid by the petitioner will be

subject to the final decision of the District Collector.

SD/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24443/2010

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF 2ND RESPONDENT'S NOTICE DATED 2.6.06 COMMUNICATED TO THE PETITIONER

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF 2ND RESPONDENT'S LETTER DATED 5.10.06 ISSUED TO PETITIONER

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF 2ND RESPONDENT'S ORDER DATED 13.10.06 COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S APPEAL DATED 8.11.06 FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 29.11.06 IN WPC NO.31615/2006 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT

EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF 1ST RESPONDENT'S NOTICE DATED 5.1.07 FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S STATEMENT DATED 24.1.07 FILED BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT

EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DATED 24.4.2009 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 3RD RESPONDENT AT THE INSTRUCTION OF 4TH RESPONDENT

EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 6.7.09 OF 4TH RESPONDENT COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER

EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 30.12.09 ISSUED TO PETITIONER FROM

ST.GEORGE'S MEDICAL MISSION HOSPITAL AT PARUMALA

EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 20.1.10 IN WPC NO 1975/2010 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 7.4.2007 OF FIRST RESPONDENT SENT TO PETITIONER ON 18.2.10

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT NO.22130000 DATED 24.7.14 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ISSUED TO PETITIONER.