Kerala High Court
The Kerala State Electricity Board vs Kochukuttan on 5 June, 2024
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRP(LR) NO. 413 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OTHERS NO.9 OF 2011 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
VYDYUTHIBHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-695004.
BY ADV SRI.T.R.RAJAN,SC,K.S.E.B.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KOCHUKUTTAN
S/O.CHAKUMPURATH SANKUNNY, POONKUNNAM DESAM,
THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK (DIED).
2 JAYAN
S/O.RAMANKUTTY, CHAKKUMPURATH HOUSE, RESIDING AT
POONKKUNNAM DESOM.
3 VALSALA WO.CHAKKUMPURATH SANKARAN NARAYANAN
RESIDING AT POONKUNNAM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR
TALUK.
4 AJITH SO.CHAKKUMPURATH SANKARAN POONKUNNAM
THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
5 R.SETHURAM
S/O.P.RAJAN, RESIDING AT RAJ BHAVAN, ADIYATAT LANE,
POOTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK.
6 THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SMT.R.RAJITHA
SRI.P.SANTHOSH PODUVAL
OTHER PRESENT:
SC FOR KSEB B.PREMOD
SR.PP.V.TEKCHAND
THIS CRP (LAND REFORMS ACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
28.05.2024, THE COURT ON 05.06.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP (LR) No.413 of 2012
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 05th day of June, 2024
The challenge in this revision is against the
order of the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur,
dismissing the appeal filed by the revision
petitioner. In the appeal, the revision
petitioner had assailed the order of assignment
dated 01.04.1977 of the Special Tahasildar (LR),
Ollukkara in O.A.No.1176 of 1976. By virtue of
the order impugned in the appeal, the
predecessor-in-interest of the second respondent
was issued with a purchase certificate with
respect to 3.165 Acres of land by accepting his
claim of being cultivating tenant of the
property. In the appeal filed with a delay of
12305 days, the revision petitioner contended as
under;
A pond having an extent of 85 cents in Sy.No.1909
of Thrissur Village, known as 'kaikulam'
belonging to Wadakkumnathan Devaswom was used by
the Kerala State Electricity Board (the
appellant), to treat its teak poles. The nearby
landowners belonging to Chakkumpurath family
annexed this pond with their properties and later
partitioned the properties, including the pond.
Thereafter, the predecessor-in-interest of the
second respondent managed to obtain purchase
certificate with respect to a portion of the
property, including the pond. The Land Tribunal
issued the certificate without conducting proper
enquiry or following the procedure prescribed
under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The
property was later bequeathed in favour of the
second respondent and he, in turn, sold the
property to respondents 3 to 5. The revision
petitioner came to know about the issuance of
purchase certificate only in the year 2007.
2. Respondents 2 to 5 filed counter
statement before the Appellate Authority opposing
the prayer for condoning the inordinate delay as
well as the factual averments in the appeal. On
merits it was contended that, purchase
certificate for an extent of 3.165 Acres of
property was given to Kochukuttan after
conducting due enquiry and affording an
opportunity of hearing to the Jenmi. After
issuance of the purchase certificate, Kochukuttan
bequeathed his property in favour of the second
respondent as per Will dated 06.01.1983. Later,
the second and third respondents, along with the
owners of adjacent properties, assigned their
land in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 as per
Sale Deed No.361/2005 dated 14.01.2005.
Thereafter, respondents 4 and 5 obtained building
permit from Thrissur Corporation and constructed
an apartment complex in that land. After
completion of the construction, respondents 4 and
5 approached the Thrissur Corporation for
issuance of occupancy certificate and at that
juncture, an objection was raised by the revision
petitioner. As a result, the occupancy
certificate was not issued. Hence, respondents 4
and 5 approached the High Court in W.P.(C)
No.1850 of 2010 arraying the Thrissur Corporation
as the first respondent, the Kerala State
Electricity Board as the second respondent, its
officials as respondents 3 and 4 and the District
Collector, as the 5th respondent. That writ
petition was disposed of on 21.01.2010, directing
the Thrissur Corporation to consider and pass
orders on the application for occupancy
certificate submitted by the writ petitioners.
Accordingly, the application was considered and
the occupancy certificate issued, overruling the
objection raised by the revision petitioner.
Consequently, the right and title over the
undivided and indivisible share in the land,
having an extent of 21.640 cents, vested with
the 26 apartments owners in the building
constructed by respondents 4 and 5.
3. The Appellate Authority found substance
in the objection raised by respondents 2 to 5 and
dismissed the appeal holding that the delay could
not be computed without producing certified copy
of the impugned order and the revision petitioner
could not establish its right over the property
in question.
4. Heard Adv.R.Pramod, learned Standing
Counsel for the revision petitioner
Board, Adv.Santhosh Poduval, learned Counsel for
respondents 2 to 5 and Adv.V.Tekchand, learned
Government Pleader.
5. Learned Standing Counsel would contend
that, as the purchase certificate was obtained by
fraud, the delay is immaterial. Even otherwise,
the revision petitioner having got information
about the assignment and issuance of purchase
certificate only in the year 2007, limitation
could be reckoned only from the date of
knowledge. If considered in that manner, there is
not much delay in filing the appeal.
6. Learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 4
submitted that, in spite of raising a contention
that the property originally belonged to
Wadakkumnathan Devaswom, the Devaswom was not
made a party to the appeal. Moreover, a vague
averment regarding the existence of a pond in
Sy.No.1909 and its user by the appellant/revision
petitioner Board for treating teak poles, no
material was produced to prove that the property
originally belonged to the Devaswom and the
manner in which it was entrusted with the
appellant. It is also contended that, in the
absence of proper and acceptable explanation, the
inordinate delay in filing the appeal may not be
condoned.
7. After hearing the learned Counsel and
perusing the records, I find no reason to
interfere with the impugned order. It is
impossible to accept that an authority like the
Kerala State Electricity Board was unaware about
the annexing of a pond in its possession by
neighbours, conversion of that pond and even the
construction of a building over it. The revision
petitioner's objection and appeal after 30 years
of issuance of purchase certificate lacks bona
fides and can only be perceived as an attempt to
cover up the lapses on the part of the officials
concerned. I am also of the definite opinion that
the explanation offered is grossly inadequate to
condone the delay of more than 30 years and
decide the appeal on merits.
For the aforementioned reasons, the civil
revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN
JUDGE
Scl/
