Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Mananchira Township Complex Pvt Ltd on 21 January, 2025
Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar
Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR
Tuesday, the 21st day of January 2025 / 1st Magha, 1946
CM.APPL.NO.1/2024 IN RP NO. 705 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.11.2020 IN WP(C) 21925/2020 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM
APPLICANTS/REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 IN WP(C)
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOL,
THRISSUR., PIN - 680003
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOL,
THRISSUR., PIN - 680003
4. THE TAHSILDAR (LR), THRISSUR TALUK, TOWN HALL, PALACE ROAD,
CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR. , PIN - 680020
5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE OFFICE, MARATHAKKARA -
PUZHAMPALLAM ROAD, MARATHAKKARA, THRISSUR. , PIN - 680306
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WP(C):
MANANCHIRA TOWNSHIP COMPLEX PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE
COMPANIES ACT, 2013, REGISTERED OFFICE AT VII/705D, NH 47, BYE-PASS,
KUNDANNUR JUNCTION, MARADU P O, KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY MARIADAS,
PROJECT MANAGER., PIN - 682304
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to condone the delay
of 768 days in filing the above Review Petition.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof and this Court's Judgment dated
03.11.2020 in WP(C) 21925/2020, and upon hearing the arguments of
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the petitioners and of SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN Advocate
for the respondent, the court passed the following:
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. C.R.
-----------------------------------------------
Review Petition No.705 of 2024
in
W.P.(C) No.21925 of 2020
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2025
ORDER
Heard the learned Government Pleader for the
applicants and Adv.Sri.Binoy Vasudevan for the respondent.
2. This is an application seeking orders condoning
the delay of 768 days in filing the review petition. The respondents
in the writ petition are the review petitioners.
3. The writ petition was disposed of directing the
respondents, among others, to reassess the land of the petitioner
mentioned in the writ petition, after classifying the same as dry
land. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application
that even though the direction in the judgment has been complied
with by issuing an order on 18.03.2021 classifying the land as
'സഭ വവ തയ ന വരതയ പരയട ', the same was challenged by the
petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1397 of 2024. It is also stated in the
affidavit that the said writ petition was allowed directing the
respondents to classify the land as 'dry land' as directed in the
judgment sought to be reviewed, and on verification of the records,
R.P. No.705 of 2024 in
it was found that the land of the petitioner is included in the data
bank prepared under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and
Wetland Act, 2008 (the Act), as 'nilam'. According to the
respondents, if the land of the petitioner is one included in the data
bank prepared under the Act, the petitioner is not entitled to
reclassification and reassessment of the land without obtaining
orders for removal of such entry from the data bank. It is stated that
the delay occurred on account of the said reasons.
4. It is seen that although the land of the petitioner is
shown in the revenue records as paddy land, the same was stated to
be reclaimed long prior to the Act, after obtaining permission from
the competent authority under the Kerala Land Utilization Order,
1967. The case set out by the petitioner in the writ petition was that
inasmuch as the land has been converted as dry land after obtaining
permission of the competent authority under the Kerala Land
Utilisation Order, 1967, the petitioner is entitled to reclassification of
the land as dry land, and reassessment of the land under the Land
Tax Act, for the effective use of the same. It is that case of the
petitioner that was accepted by this Court and the writ petition was
disposed of as indicated above. The materials indicate that about
two years after the disposal of the writ petition, in Revenue
R.P. No.705 of 2024 in
Divisional Officer, Ernakulam v. M/s.Poothotta Resorts Pvt.
Ltd., 2023 (1) KHC 34, a Division Bench of this Court held that if a
land covered by a permission under the Land Utilisation Order, 1967
is included in the data bank prepared under the Act, an application
for reclassification and reassessment of the same can be made only
after removing the same from the data bank, and it is in the light of
the said judgment, the review petition is filed.
5. Although it is not specifically stated in the
judgment, the view taken in the case is that when a statutory order
is passed in terms of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 which is
a subordinate legislation under the Essential Commodities Act, such
an order cannot be nullified by a subsequent legislation, especially
when the subsequent legislation does not contain a non obstante
clause. The said view may or may not be right, but it binds the
parties, and a judgment rendered on that basis cannot be reviewed
based on a subsequent conflicting decision of this Court for, it is now
trite that a change of law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-
ordinate Bench or a larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a
ground for review. If the earlier binding judgments are permitted to
be reviewed based on subsequent decision/judgment of a co-
ordinate Bench, the law will be bereft of all its utility and in a state
R.P. No.705 of 2024 in
of uncertainty [See Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer,
(2024) 2 SCC 362]. The review petition, in the circumstances, is only
to be dismissed.
6. Be that as it may, as an application seeking orders
to condone the delay in filing the review petition cannot be
dismissed on the merits of the matter, it is necessary to examine
the sufficiency of the cause for the delay stated in the affidavit filed
in support of the application. As noted, the judgment sought to be
reviewed has been accepted by the respondents and an order also
has been issued in purported compliance of the same. The review
petition was filed long thereafter, in the light of the decision of this
Court in M/s.Poothotta Resorts Pvt. Ltd. As noted, the cause
stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for
condoning the delay is that when the records of the case were
verified for compliance of the direction issued by this court in W.P.(C)
No.1397 of 2024, it was revealed that the property of the petitioner
is included in the data bank. From the averments in the review
petition and the grounds taken therein, it can certainly be gathered
that a decision was taken to seek review of the judgment in W.P.(C)
No.1397 of 2024 and the judgment in the instant case, in the light of
the decision of this court in M/s.Poothotta Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
R.P. No.705 of 2024 in
which held that the holder of a land which is included in the data
bank, cannot seek reclassification and reassessment of the land
without removing the same from the data bank. In other words, the
subsequent conflicting decision is the cause for the delay in filing
the review petition. A subsequent conflicting decision cannot be
accepted as a cause, much less any sufficient cause, for condoning
the delay in filing the review petition. The delay petition, in the
circumstances, is dismissed.
Sd/-
P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
ds
21-01-2025 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
