Kerala High Court
St. Dominic'S Church vs The Chairman, Taluk Land Board on 21 November, 2024
W. A. No. 1344 of 2018
-1-
2024:KER:89323
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2024 / 30TH KARTHIKA,
1946
WA NO. 1344 OF 2018
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.06.2016 IN WPC NO.21109
OF 2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
ST. DOMINIC'S CHURCH
(KALDAYA SURIYANI PALLI), KANJIRAPPALLY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS TRUSTEE, K.M. MATHEW, S/O.
MATHEW, MALIYEKKAL, KANJIRAPPALLY.
BY ADVS.
SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K)
SRI.ABY J AUGUSTINE
SRI.MATHEW DEVASSI
RESPONDENT/S:
THE CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD
KANJIRAPPALLY, (THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, (LA)
KOTTAYAM) - 686001.
BY ADV. SRI M H HANILKUMAR, SPL.GP
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.11.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W. A. No. 1344 of 2018
-2-
2024:KER:89323
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2024
Nitin Jamdar, C. J.
Heard Mr. Mathew John, learned counsel for the Appellant
and Mr. M. H. Hanilkumar, learned Special Government Pleader
appearing for the State.
2. For the order that we propose to pass, it is not necessary to
detail the facts.
3. The Appellant / Petitioner had received Ext. P5 notice dated
19 February 2018 calling upon the Appellant to appear before the
Taluk Land Board in respect of the ceiling case under Section 85(7) of
the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (the Act of 1963). The Appellant
questioned this notice by way of filing W. P. (C) No. 21109 of 2018,
which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge on 26 June 2018,
calling upon the Appellant to show cause to the notice as the Appellant
had not submitted any objections.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that since the
Appellant, being an institution of public nature for religious and
charitable purposes, does not fall within the definition of 'person'
under Chapter III of the Act of 1963 and in view of the explanation
appended to the said provision.
5. The issue as to whether an institution is of a public or
religious nature has to be decided by the State Government and
2024:KER:89323
therefore, this issue cannot be decided by the Board. Ext. P1 certificate
is not in the name of the Appellant. Therefore, it cannot be said that
there are no questions of facts involved at all to issue a writ of
prohibition to the Board. Appellant has not yet given a response to the
show cause. In response to the show cause, the Appellant can raise all
the contentions that are available including the one which is raised
before us, and it is for the Board to decide the same and we are not
deemed to have adjudicated any of the issues that the Appellant has
raised. We leave it open to the Board to decide the issue keeping all
contentions of both the parties and their remedies in law open. The
Appellant will submit the explanation and objection within a period of
one month. Thereafter, a necessary decision be taken by the Board
within a period of two months. Till that time, the interim order
operating in this appeal shall continue.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
NITIN JAMDAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
S. MANU
JUDGE
Eb
