Kerala High Court
Luka Joseph vs Sibi Kutty G. Sebastian on 3 September, 2024
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
R.P.No.813 OF 2024
1
2024:KER:66385
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU
TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024 / 12TH BHADRA, 1946
RP NO. 813 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09/07/2024 IN WP(C) NO.7530 OF
2020.
REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1 LUKA JOSEPH
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. JOSEPH, KARUKACHERIYIL HOUSE, KATTAPANA P.O,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 686508
2 LUCY LUKA
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O. LUKA JOSEPH, KARUKACHERIYIL HOUSE, KATTAPANA P.O,
IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 686508
BY ADVS.
NITA.N.S.
JESTIN MATHEW
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 SIBI KUTTY G. SEBASTIAN
S/O. SEBASTIAN, GANAPATHIPLACKEL HOUSE, VAZHAVARA,
KATTAPANA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 686508
2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
LAND ASSIGNMENT, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN - 686553
R.P.No.813 OF 2024
2
2024:KER:66385
3 TAHSILDAR
UDUMBANCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685554
4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685602
5 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
6 THE SECRETARY
KATTAPANA MUNCIPALITY, KATTAPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN - 685508
7 THE TAHSILDAR
IDUKKI, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685508
8 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KATTAPANA VILLAGE OFFICE, KATTAPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN - 685508
BY ADV C.J.JOY
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.09.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No.813 OF 2024
3
2024:KER:66385
O R D E R
Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2024
A.Muhamed Mustaque, Acg.C.J.
This review petition was filed by the writ petitioners.
This Court had dismissed the challenge made by the petitioners in
the writ petition. In the writ petition, the challenge was against Ext.P10.
Ext.P10 is the proceedings of the District Collector, Idukki, cancelling
transfer of registry. It is observed in the impugned proceeding that the
transfer of registry was effected based on the bogus patta produced by
the petitioners. It is to be noted that petitioners did not produce any
assignment order. The petitioners claimed that patta was issued in the
year 1979. The first petitioner at that time was only 19 years old. As per
the patta eligibility condition, if he was not an encroacher prior to 1971,
he cannot make any preferential claim. The first petitioner had not
established any prima facie case before this Court as to how he was
R.P.No.813 OF 2024
2024:KER:66385
eligible to obtain patta. This Court had already entered a finding
endorsing the view of the District Collector as to the genuineness of the
patta. This Court need not reiterate it again.
2. The review petitioner further argued that he was not given the
report as referred in Ext.P10. It is to be noted, the proceedings were
initiated based on a complaint made by one Sebastian, who has been
assigned a portion of the land in the same survey number under Land
Assignment Rules. A detailed objection has been set out by the review
petitioner as evident from Ext.P4. He has never raised a contention that
he was denied an opportunity to refer the report. It is to be noted,
District Collector heard the review petitioner and after verifying the
records, came to a conclusion that Patta claimed by the petitioner was
bogus. It is further noted that files relating to transfer of registry were
also manipulated and the officer concerned was suspended from service
and disciplinary actions were taken against him. Even before this court,
the review petitioner miserably failed to establish any prima facie case.
The review petitioner had no answer with regard to assignment order,
R.P.No.813 OF 2024
2024:KER:66385
which ought to have been preceded the patta.
All the above facts clearly establish that bogus patta was placed
before the revenue officials to obtain transfer of registry. The review
petitioners' argument that there are no proceedings to cancel the patta
is unsustainable as the very case of the revenue authorities itself is that
the patta claimed by the review petitioners is bogus. The finding of the
facts is already appreciated by this Court in the judgment under review.
There is no scope for review. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed.
/-yyyyySdisD/- S Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
Sdkk Sd/-kk/-
S.MANU
JUDGE
ms
R.P.No.813 OF 2024
2024:KER:66385
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 643/1/1981
DATED 13/03/1981 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE
KATTAPPANA
Annexure A A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1303/1/2006
DATED 27/04/2006 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE
KATTAPPANA
Annexure C TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED 511/01/1977 DATED
28/04/1977 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE
PEERUMEDU
Annexure D TRUE COPY OF THE LA NO.168/65 PATTA DATED
23/05/1983
Annexure E TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 16/12/2019
SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE
OFFICE OF THE TALUK, IDUKKI
Annexure F TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22/07/2021 IN
Annexure G TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 07/04/2022
ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT
Annexure H TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAAR CARD OF THE 1ST
PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1 (A) True copy of the relevant portions of the
report dated 10/08/2021 submitted by the
village officer . kattappana to the district
collector , idukki
