Kennady vs (The Revenue Divisional Officer
2023 Latest Caselaw 6213 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
 MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1945
                   WP(C) NO. 32490 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          KENNADY
          AGED 53 YEARS
          S/O DAVIS, MANJALI HOUSE, CHIYARAM VILLAGE,
          KURIYACHIRA DESOM, THRISSUR TALUK,
          THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680006.
          BY ADVS.
          V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
          MAYA M.


RESPONDENTS:

    1      (THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
           OFFICE OF REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
           IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR, PIN 680125.)**
           CORRECTED
    2      ( TAHSILDAR,
           CHALAKUDY TALUK, CHALAKUDY.P.O, THRISSUR
           DISTRICT, PIN - 680 307.
           (OFFICER UNDER THE LAND CONSERVANCY
           ACT))**CORRECTED
           **R1.THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF
           REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION,
           AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN-680 003.
           **R2.TAHSILDAR, TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR TALUK,
           TALUK OFFICE, CHEMKUKKAVU, THRISSUR, 680020
           (OFFICER UNDER THE LAND CONSERVANCY ACT)"
           (ADDRESS OF R1 AND R2 SUBSTITUTED AS PER ORDER
           DATED 17-11-2022 IN IA 1/2022)
    3      ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
           IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, CHEMBUKAVU,
           THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN 68020.
 WPC 32490/2022
                              ..2..


    4      SICILY PAUL,
           AGED 63 YEARS
           W/O PLAKKAL PAUL, KURIACHIRA DESOM, CHIYYARAM
           VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK,
           THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680006.
           BY ADVS.
           P.M.RAFIQ
           M.REVIKRISHNAN
           AJEESH K.SASI
           SRUTHY K.K
           RAHUL SUNIL
           SRUTHY N. BHAT
           NIKITA J. MENDEZ

            SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY-GP


        THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 12.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WPC 32490/2022
                                    ..3..


                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner singularly pleads that the action pursuant

to Ext.P7, under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act (KLC Act), be

directed to be completed by the competent among respondent

nos. 1, 2 and 3, against the 4 th respondent, within a time

frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. Smt.M.Maya - learned counsel for the petitioner,

argued that, even though Ext.P7 has been issued to the 4 th

respondent in "Form C" of the Rules under the "KLC Act",

finding that she is in unauthorised possession of the

Government "puramboke" land, no further action has been

completed; and thus, that her client has been constrained to

approach this Court.

3. In response, Sri.Ajeesh K.Sasi - learned counsel

appearing for the 4th respondent, submitted that Ext.P7 is

incorrect, since his client is not in possession of any

"puramboke" land and that said allegation has been

occassioned only because of a mistake in the survey records.

He added that said notice was issued without offering his client

an opportunity of being heard; and thus prayed that this writ

petition be dismissed.

WPC 32490/2022 ..4..

4. Sri.Riyal Devassy - learned Government Pleader,

submitted that if the petitioner only requires further action

based on Ext.P7 to be completed, after hearing him as also the

4th respondent, the competent among respondent nos.1, 2 and

3 will do so without any avoidable delay. He, however, added

that the afore assertions of the 4 th respondent are factually not

true.

5. When I evaluate the afore submissions, it is evident

that, as matters now stand, the 4 th respondent has not chosen

to challenge Ext.P7. Obviously, therefore, his contentions are

not ones that this Court can consider in this writ petition.

6. However, when further action based on Ext.P7 is

taken forward, the assertions of the 4 th respondent will also

have to be adverted to by the competent among respondent

nos.1, 2 and 3, within the ambit of the KLC Act.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition,

recording the afore undertaking of the learned Government

Pleader; consequentially, directing the competent among

respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 to complete action based on Ext.P7,

after hearing the petitioner and the 4th respondent, within a

period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

WPC 32490/2022 ..5..

I, however, make it clear that I have not considered the

contentions of the 4th respondent on its merits and that all of

them are left open to be impelled by her, if she is so

interested, appropriately.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE

ACR WPC 32490/2022 ..6..

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32490/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2011 KHC 4091 (JAGPAL SINGH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS) Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.01.2013 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT THRISSUR IN OS. 1632/2011.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 17.07.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 7.9.2020 OF TALUK OFFICE THRISSUR, SURVEY SKETCH SHOWING THE ENCROACHED PORTION OF GOVERNMENT PURAMBOKE LAND OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06.10.2020 OF TAHSILDAR.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM C NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2020.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.04.2021 ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR TO THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.8.2021 OF 1ST RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TO ASSISTANT ENGINEER.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.10.2021 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT