Kerala High Court
Jacob Cherian Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 11 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017
PETITIONER/S:
1 JACOB CHERIAN THOMAS
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS,MARUTHOOKUNNEL HOUSE,
MARIDOM KARA,KADAPLAMATTOM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL
TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
2 JOHNY CHERIAN THOMAS JOHNY C THOMAS
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O.THOMAS, AGED 43 YEARS, MARUTHOOKUNNEL HOUSE,
MARIDOM KARA,KADAPLAMATTOM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL
TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SAJU J PANICKER
KURIAN K JOSE(K/001510/2019)
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
2 LAND REVENUE COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KOTTAYAM
4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 2
PALA
5 TAHSILDAR
MEENACHIL
6 VILLAGE OFFICER
KIDANGOOR
7 PHILOMINA JOSEPH
KALEKKATTIL HOUSE, KUMMANOOR,KIDANGOOR VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
ADDL.R8 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE
KIDANGOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
REPRRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.(IS IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 21.06.2017 IN IA 9213/17)
ADDL.R9 TAHSILDAR (LR), MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM (IS
IMPLEADED IN THIS WRIT PETITION AS PER ORDER DATED
11.04.2024)
BY ADVS.
SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM
SAJU J PANICKER
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 3
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C.) No. 19367 of 2017
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
(i) "To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ
order or direction to the respondents to call for all records
leading up to Ext.P7 and quash Exts.P6 and P7.
(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ
order or direction to the respondents restraining them from
making any corrections in the resurvey or revenue records as to
the nature of the properties of the petitioners covered by
Ext.P1, based on Exts.P6 and P7.
(iii) To grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court
deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case, including the cost of the petitioners." [sic]
2. The petitioners are the owners of the properties
covered by Ext.P1 is the submission, which according to them
is a garden land. It is submitted that in the survey records and
revenue records including Ext.P2 basic tax register, it is shown
as 'garden land'. It is submitted that based on a petition filed by
the 7th respondent, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P7 finding that
as per the settlement register, the property is shown as nilam
and as per re-survey, it is categorized as 'purayidam', which is
a mistake and directed the same to be corrected. Pursuant to
Ext.P7, the 2nd respondent issued Ext.P6. According to the
petitioners, Exts.P6 and P7 are issued without any notice or
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is further submitted
that Exts.P2 to P4 would show that the property in question is a
garden land and there are trees having considerable age
standing in the property. When there was an attempt to
implement Ext.P7, this writ petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned counsel
appearing for the 7th respondent.
4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the
light of the decision of this Court in Indira P.S. and others v.
Sub-Collector, Fort Kochi and anr. [2020 (4) KHC 33], the
impugned orders are to be set aside. The Government Pleader
submitted that the matter is to be considered by the additional
9th respondent.
5. This Court perused Ext.P7. It is true that there is
some finding in Ext.P7 against the contention of the petitioners.
But, Ext.P7 is only an internal communication between the
Revenue Divisional Officer and additional Tahsildar.
Untrammelled by the same, the additional 9 th respondent can
consider the issue and decide the matter, in accordance with
law, in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in
Indira P.S.'s case (supra).
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
1) The additional 9th respondent is directed to consider the
issue after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners and the 7th respondent as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
2) While deciding the matter, the additional 9 th respondent
will consider the dictum laid down by this Court in Indira
P.S. and others v. Sub-Collector, Fort Kochi and anr.
[2020 (4) KHC 33].
3) I make it clear that the additional 9 th respondent shall
consider the matter untrammelled by any direction in
Ext.P7 order.
4) The petitioners will produce a certified copy of this
judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the
additional 9th respondent for compliance.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19367/2017
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE
1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 18.12.2015
OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23.02.2016
OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
19.03.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
04.10.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ON 29.03.2013
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPIES OF LETTER DATED 26.04.2017
WITH PORTIONS OF SETTLEMENT REGISTER
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R7(A) THE COPY OF THE SURVEY SETTLEMENT REGISTER
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF THE
PETITIONERS (SURVEY NO. 297/5).
Exhibit R7(B) THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE COPY OF THE
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.
1770/1955 OF THE SRO, ETTUMANOOR ALONG
WITH THE TYPED COPY OF THE SAME.
Exhibit R7(C) THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. L.R. A4-
15852/12/LDIS. DATED 4.10.2012 ISSUED BY
THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER TO THIS
RESPONDENT INTIMATING THAT THE RDO HAS
DIRECTED THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TO
RECTIFY THE MISTAKE THAT OCCURRED IN
PREPARING THE RESURVEY RECORDS.
Exhibit R7(D) THE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT SHOWING THE
REMITTANCE OF THE TAX BY RESPONDENT NO. 7.
Exhibit R7(E) THE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED
11.11.2014 SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT
ALONG WITH THE OTHER NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY
OWNERS BEFORE THE RDO, PALA.
Exhibit R7(F) THE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 12.5.2022
SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KIDANGOOR TO THE TALUK OFFICER, MEENACHIL.
Exhibit R7(G) THE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 9.6.2022
SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
TAHSILDAR (LR), MEENACHIL.
Exhibit R7(H) THE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 2.7.2022
ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER,
KIDANGOOR TO THE TAHSILDAR (LR).
