Kerala High Court
Paulose Thomas vs The District Collector on 12 January, 2023
WP(C) NO. 18286 OF 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 22ND POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18286 OF 2013
PETITIONER/S:
PAULOSE THOMAS
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O.LATE THOMAS, CHITTAYATHU HOUSE, NELLIMATTOM P.O.,
KOTHAMANGALAM.
BY ADV SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANADU,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682 023.
2 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE KOTHAMANGALAM
KOTHAMANGALAM PIN - 686 693.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE
NELLIMATTOM P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM.
BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.K.M.FAISAL, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 18286 OF 2013 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 18286 of 2013
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2023
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other direction quashing
Ext.P6 and P7 stop memos issued by the 3 rd respondent for the
ends of justice.
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus to the 1 st respondent to
consider and pass orders on Exhibit P8 petition for grant of
lease over the 80.500 cents of property in possession of the
petitioner for more than 50 years and cultivated by him.
(iii) To declare that the above said property is vested with the
petitioner by the principles of adverse possession and the
Respondents have no manner of right or authority to interfere
with the possession over the property in any manner." [SIC]
2. When this writ petition came up for consideration, the
counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Collector
is bound to pass orders in Ext.P8 application. The learned
Government Pleader on the other hand, takes me through
paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit, which is
extracted hereunder :
"8. The petitioner and his family possess 04.51.500 acres of
patta land in various survey numbers in Kuttamangalam Village
and also unauthorisedly possess some Government land. The
petitioner has himself admitted that he and his family owned
patta land. Hence, they are not eligible to get the land assigned.
As far as ,his claim with regards to Exhibit P8, the lease
application is concerned, there is no such application is seen to
have been received in this office. Where as it is seen that he has
submitted a complaint against Geologist on 16.5.2013, the same
day as dated in Exhibit P8. So there is no such application as
alleged by the petitioner, is pending for disposal before the
District Collector.
9. The petitioner is a Christian Priest. He and his family
possess 04.51.500 Acres of patta land and also some
encroached Government land. He is trying to regularize his
encroachment by misguiding this Honourable Court. The
petitioner's claim that he is doing cultivation in the land, is false
and misleading. Actually he is trying to install a M-sand unit
illegally in the land. Hence Exhibit P6 & P7 are sustainable. The
Village Officer is duty bound to protect the Government land.
There is no records or files are seen available regarding
allotment of Kuthakappttom in anyone's name.
10. The petitioner has not seen filed a petition, that was
marked as Exhibit P8 before District Collector for the allotment
of land on lease. Not only that the silence in the matter can
never be considered as the permission for the same. So the stop
memos issued by the 3rd respondent was not ulterior & blasted
but just & proper. The respondents are Government Employees.
They have never tried to interfere the petitioner's personal
property or livelihoods. They have only tried to protect the
Government land, encroached by the petitioner abiding by laws
on land."
3. Since, the limited prayer of the petitioner is for a
consideration of Ext.P8, I do not want to consider the matter on
merit. Moreover, this writ petition is pending before this Court
from 2013 onwards and no interim order is also passed in this
case. In such circumstances, there can be a direction to the 1 st
respondent to consider Ext.P8 and pass appropriate orders in it
in accordance with law.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions :
1) There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to
consider and pass appropriate orders in Ext.P8 as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
2) Before passing final orders, an opportunity of hearing
should be given to the petitioner.
3) I make it clear that I have not considered the matter
on merit and the 1st respondent is free to pass
appropriate orders in accordance to law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18286/2013
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION
DATED 14.5.1986 ISSUED BY THE UNDER
SECRETARY UNDER NO.29270/L1/86/RD.
EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED
15.3.1965
EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT
EXECUTED BY THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER IN
FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 12.11.1982
EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.315/11
DATED 28.11.2011 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KUTTAMANGALAM.
EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.DEO/193/E2/12 DATED 19.1.2012
EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO
NO.274/13 DATED 11.6.2013 OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER, KUTTAMANGALAM.
EXT.P-7: TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND STOP MEMO
NO.325/13 DATED 12.7.2013 OF THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, KUTTAMANGALAM.
EXT.P-8: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED
16.5.2013 MADE BY THE PETITIONER FOR
GRANTING LEASE OVER THE PROPERTY IN
POSSESSION OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P-9: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED
BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
MUVATTUPUZHA.
EXT.P-10: TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER
PROPERTIES IN THE SAME COMPOUND.
