Kerala High Court
Philomina George vs The State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 398 OF 2023
PETITIONER:
PHILOMINA GEORGE,
AGED 84 YEARS
W/O LATE KANAPPILLY GEORGE, KANAPPILLY HOUSE
THANDIRIKKAL COLONY, MUPPATHADAM (S.O.) ALUVA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683110
BY ADVS.
M.A.ZOHRA
SHREEJI R. NAIR
AKBAR ZAHEER A.N.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER LAND
REVENUE COMMISSIONERATE REVENUE COMPLEX, PUBLIC
OFFICE BUILDING MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 THE TAHSILDAR (LA)
TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 683513
4 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 683513
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KADUNGALLOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683102
OTHER PRESENT:
GP - SYAMANTHAK B.S.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). No.398 of 2023 :2:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
W.P.(C) No.398 of 2023
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2023
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash
Ext.P8 communication, by which the 3 rd respondent declined the
grant of patta to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is a senior citizen and permanent resident of
Thandirikkal Colony, Muppathadam, Ernakulam since 1962. Her
erstwhile residence at Edayar was taken up for the Edayar
Industrial Zone along with property of hundreds of residents like
her and they were rehabilitated in Thandirikkal Colony in 1962.
The petitioner was granted 8 cents of land in Sy. No. 101 of
Muppathadam village, where she has constructed a house and was
residing with her family consisting of her late husband and three
children and was paying building tax for her house as assessed by
the Kadungalloor Grama Panchayat, as is evident from Ext.P1 to
P1(b) building tax receipts. The address in Ext.P2 election ID card
and Ext.P3 ration card is also in respect of the said property. The
petitioner submits that most of the rehabilitated residents of
Thandirikkal Colony were issued with patta. Though the petitioner
submitted an application for obtaining patta for her property, for
the past 59 years the same was not granted. Thereafter the
petitioner submitted Ext.P4 representation dated 13.09.2021
before the 3rd respondent. The petitioner submits that in respect of
the property owned by her neighbour, patta has been issued as per
Ext.P7 and that the petitioner alone has been discriminated. The
petitioner also submits that, she is 84 years old with health issues
and she was taken to her son's house for treatment for a few
months consecutively and during that time her house was locked.
Subsequently Ext.P8 communication was issued intimating that her
application for issuance of patta has been declined holding that she
is in possession of 0.61 Ares of land and the rest of her property
was assigned in favour of her son, where he has constructed a
house and hence she is not eligible to get patta for her 8 cents of
land for which she has applied and further that she is presently
residing along with her son. The petitioner submits that she
retired from her service as a last grade factory employee of the
Edayar Industrial Zone and has a meagre pension of Rs.500/- and
her husband died many years ago. Her son who was out of station
in connection with his business has to purchase 10 cents of land in
Sy. No. 137/1 of Muppathadam village for a value of Rs.60,000/- in
the name of the petitioner. She conveyed the property less 0.61
ares (1.25 cents) to her son as she was only a name lender. He has
constructed a house there and is residing with his wife and
children. The petitioner submits that she has no other property or
house other than the one where she had been rehabilitated and
constructed a house out of her own funds.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader also, who on the
strength of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3 rd
respondent would contend that the property in question included in
Sy. No.101 for assignment has been leased out to some people and
now they are staying there and that now the petitioner is staying
with her son in Sy. No.337/1.
4. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner answering
the averments in the counter affidavit. Based on Ext.P9 ownership
certificate issued by the Kadungalloor Grama Panchayat, it is
certified that the building bearing No.447 in ward No.17 owned by
the petitioner is 25 years old, based on the Assessment Register
maintained by the local authority. Ext.P11 is the communication
issued from the office of the 3rd respondent and Ext.P11(a) is the
communication from the Government, which were addressed to the
place where assignment is sought for. Based on the same the
petitioner would submit that the contention that she is not residing
there is absolutely without any basis.
5. In the counter affidavit filed by the 3 rd respondent it is
admitted that the petitioner was residing in a puramboke at
Edayar, which was taken over for the establishment of Edayar
Industrial Zone along with the properties of hundreds of residents
and they were rehabilitated in Thandirikkal Colony before 1970
and that the petitioner constructed a house in the property in
question and was residing there along with her husband and three
children. In view of the admission on the part of the 3 rd respondent
that the petitioner has been rehabilitated in the present occasion
before 1970 (claim of the petitioner is that she was residing there
from 1962) and that she has constructed a house therein, I am of
the view that the reason stated in Ext.P8 to reject the application
submitted by the petitioner is liable to be interfered with. The
learned Government Pleader submits that documents produced as
Exts.P9 and P11(a) will not prove that that petitioner is residing in
the said house. The specific averment of the petitioner is that she
has been residing there for years, except for a short period when
she was unwell that she was residing with her son and I am of the
opinion that the same cannot be a reason for taking a stand that
the petitioner is not residing in the property so as to deny the
entitlement for assignment. Therefore, Ext.P8 is set aside, with a
consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to reconsider the
application for issuance of patta in respect of the property of the
petitioner in question, after affording an opportunity of being heard
to the petitioner. It is made clear that the reason stated in Ext.P8 to
reject the application is totally unsustainable, in view of the
specific assertion of the petitioner that she has been residing in the
said property after construction of the residential building, which is
admitted by the respondent in the counter affidavit. Intermittent
staying away from the property, especially due to her old age and
health issues cannot be a reason for rejecting her application as is
done in Ext.P8. If the reason stated in Ext.P8 is the only reason for
rejecting the application, I am of the view that the application
submitted by the petitioner for assignment has to be allowed in her
favour. The 3rd respondent shall reconsider the matter as directed
above and final orders shall be passed within an outer limit of one
month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Sd/-
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
sm/
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 398/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPTS
OF THE YEAR 2000
Exhibit P1 (a) A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPTS
OF THE YEAR 2009
Exhibit 1 (b) A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPTS
OF THE YEAR 2022
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S VOTER ID
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S RATION
CARD
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE
BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR INDUSTRIES DATED
13.09.2021
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON
13.09.2021 WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION RECEIVED
FROM THE SECRETARIAT REGARDING THE
FORWARDING OF EXT P2 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER'S NEIGHBOUR
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE
3RD RESPONDENT REFUSING PATTA TO THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP
CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER'S HOUSE
NO.447/17 ISSUED BY THE KADUNGALLOOR
GRAMA PANCHAYAT ON 6-1-2023 TO BE
PRODUCED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING AGE CERTIFICATE
WITH REGARD TO THE HOUSE NO.447/17 DATED
6-1-2023 ISSUED BY THE KADUNGALLOOR GRAMA
PANCHAYAT TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COVER SENT ON I.G.S
TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT
OFFICE DATED 23-7-2022
Exhibit P11 (a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE COVER SENT ON I.G.S
TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE
MINISTER FOR REVENUE AND HOUSING,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 25-10-2021
