Kerala High Court
P. K. Thomas vs 1. Revenue Divisional Officer, ... on 22 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 1ST ASHADHA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 24861 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
P. K. THOMAS, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.KURUVILA,
PANDAKKUNNEL, PUTHUPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686011
NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP
ABHIRAM T.K.
RESPONDENTS:
1 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM - 686001
2 TAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS), TALUK OFFICER,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
3 HEAD SURVEYOR, SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, TALUK OFFICE,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
4 ARUN KUMAR, S/O.THANKACHAN, MAMBALATH HOUSE, M.L. ROAD,
KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
M.NARENDRA KUMAR
HARSHADEV M.
SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY - GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 24861 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner calls into question Ext.P12 order issued by
the second respondent - Tahsildar (Land Records), asserting that
it has been issued without hearing him and merely based on
untenable objections raised by the fourth respondent.
2. Sri.Nandagopal S.Kurup - learned counsel for the
petitioner, explained that his client is the owner of the property
involved in this case, but that when he attempted to remit land
tax thereon, it was objected to saying that his sale transactions
are not reflected in any of the revenue records, though they are
available in the name of his predecessor-in-interest. He
submitted that, therefore, when he approached the Tahsildar
(Land Records) for rectification, he has refused to act merely
based on an objection raised by the fourth respondent, which is
reflected in Ext.P12. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition
be allowed and the Tahsildar (Land Records) be directed to
reconsider the matter, adverting to his client's case and also
after affording him an opportunity of being heard.
3. In response to the afore submissions,
Sri.M.Narendrakumar - learned counsel for the fourth
WP(C) NO. 24861 OF 2022
respondent, submitted that his client has valid documents to
establish his title over the property in question and, therefore,
that the Tahsildar (Land Records) was justified in holding in
Ext.P12 that the petitioner must invoke his alternative statutory
remedies. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
4. Sri.Riyal Devassy - learned Government Pleader,
submitted that the Tahsildar (Land Records) is incapacitated
from considering the claims of the rival parties because he does
not have the power to do so. He submitted that it is, therefore,
that Ext.P12 has been issued. He then asserted that the
petitioner was heard, but he was unable to confirm it through
any pleading or materials on record.
5. Even when I find some force in the afore submissions of
the learned Government Pleader, the fact remains that an order
akin to Ext.P12 could have been issued by the Tahsildar (Land
Records) only after hearing the petitioner. This is because, the
petitioner certainly has the right to establish his case based on
germane and relevant documents, but this has not even been
allowed by the Tahsildar before Ext.P12 had been issued.
6. In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and
set aside Ext.P12; with a consequential direction to the second
WP(C) NO. 24861 OF 2022
respondent - Tahsildar (Land Records) to reconsider the matter,
after hearing the petitioner as also the fourth respondent or any
other person who may be interested of being heard; thus
culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action
thereon, within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment.
I clarify that I have not entered into the merits of the
contentions nor have I found fault with the opinion of the
Tahsildar that a civil remedy is the best as far as the petitioner is
concerned. However, it is for him to reconsider this issue and
take a resultant decision, based on all documents and materials
that the parties may place before him when the afore enquiry is
continued.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
stu
WP(C) NO. 24861 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24861/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.340 DATED
03.02.1986 OF ADDITIONAL SUB REGISTRAR
OFFICE, KOTTAYAM.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 02.05.1988
ISSUED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT
OF THE PROPERTY COVERED BY EXHIBIT P1 SALE
DEED.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 339 OF
ADDITIONAL SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KOTTAYAM
DATED 03.02.1986.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED
07.11.192 EXECUTED BY MR. K.K. JOHN IN FAVOR
OF MR. C.C. ITTY.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 30.04.1996
NUMBERED 1046 OF PUTHUPALLY SRO
Exhibit P6 THANDAPER ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF THE FOURTH
RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY COVERED
BY EXHIBIT P5 SALE DEED.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
16.01.2018 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE TALUK
SURVEYOR.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19.04.2021
SUBMITTED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR ALONG WITH
EXHIBIT P8 SKETCH TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 02.08.2021
PREFERRED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 09.09.2021
ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE FOURTH
WP(C) NO. 24861 OF 2022
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2021
ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
10.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE
FIRST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING THE
ACCEPTANCE OF EXHIBIT P13 FROM THE OFFICE OF
THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R4(a) TRUE COPY OF SKETCH SHOWING THE PROPERTY
COMPRISED IN BLOCK NO.22, RE-SURVEY NO.442/7
AND THE NILAM ADJOINING IT.
Exhibit R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 02.08.2021 IN
REPLY TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY TAHSILDAR (LAND
RECORDS) KOTTAYAM.
