Kerala High Court
M Aboobacker vs State Of Kerala on 7 July, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
2025:KER:49849
WA No. 1575 of 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2025 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1947
WA NO. 1575 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.06.2025 IN WP(C) NO.32340 OF 2022
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
M ABOOBACKER
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O MUHAMMED KUNJU, VELLALIL, KEERIKKAD.P.O.,
KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 502.
BY ADVS. SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH
SHRI.RENOY VINCENT
SRI.SHAHIR SHOWKATH ALI
SHRI.CHELSON CHEMBARATHY
SHRI.ABEE SHEJIRIK FASLA N.K
SMT.NANDA SURENDRAN
SHRI.SAHAL SHAJAHAN
SHRI.AQUIN KURUVILLA TOM
SHRI.M.N.MOHAMMED HUSSAIN
SHRI.JITHIN ALEXANDER SUNNY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001
2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
KAYAMKULAM, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 691 523
3 TAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS)
TALUK OFFICE, KARTHIKAPALLY, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690 516
2025:KER:49849
WA No. 1575 of 2025
2
4 SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
LAND ACQUISITION, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688 001.
5 SADASIVAN PILLAI
S/O KESAVAPILLA, SREENILAYATHIL, KEERIKKADU.P.O.,
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 690 508.
OTHER PRESENT:
SR GP SMT.B VINITHA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.07.2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:49849
WA No. 1575 of 2025
3
Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR & P.M. MANOJ, JJ.
----------------------------------------------------
W.A. No. 1575 of 2025
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of July, 2025.
JUDGMENT
P.M. Manoj J :
The writ appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 09.06.2025 in
WP(C) No.32340 of 2022. The writ petitioner is the appellant and the appeal was
filed on the ground of non-consideration of the contention regarding violation of
principles of natural justice by the learned Single Judge.
2. The writ petition was preferred challenging Ext.P6 order whereby the
transfer of registry has been cancelled by the 3rd respondent.
3. The case of the appellant in the writ petition was that he was having 0.20
Ares of property situated in Re-Survey No.38/1 and Old Survey No.1374 of Block
No.21 of Pathiyur Village, Karthikappally Taluk, Alappuzha District. The property
was purchased on 28.03.1996 by sale deed No.1202/1996 of Kariyilakkulangara
Sub Registry. The Thandaper assigned to the appellant was 10767 and a possession
and a non-attachment certificate were also issued in favour of the appellant by the
Village Officer of Pathiyur Village.
4. While so, the 5th respondent preferred a complaint stating that he is having
title over the property. Accordingly, on examination of the relevant documents, the
3rd respondent has cancelled the transfer of registry by Ext.P6 order dated
24.09.2022. Against the said cancellation of transfer of registry, the writ petition
was filed.
2025:KER:49849
5. The 3rd respondent has preferred a counter affidavit in which after the
detailed description it is stated that the predecessor in interest does not have any
title over the 0.16 Ares in Block No.21 Re-survey No.38/1 of Pathiyur Village
claimed to be owned by the appellant, which is in possession and enjoyment of 5th
respondent. Even a physical examination was also conducted by the Village Officer,
Pathiyur in which it appeared that the mutated land was not physically present in
the ownership of the appellant. Thereafter, a hearing was offered. Only thereafter
the impugned order in the writ petition was passed by the 3rd respondent.
6. The learned Single Judge disposed the writ petition considering the above
aspects and also finding that against the impugned order an effective alternate
remedy is available to the appellant by preferring an appeal before the 2 nd
respondent where the factual issues can be considered in detail. An opportunity
was given to the petitioner to file the appeal by condoning the delay and a specific
direction has been given to the 2nd respondent to dispose the appeal on merits
after affording an opportunity of being heard to the affected parties within a
stipulated period and the interim order dated 12.10.2022 was validated till a final
decision is taken in the appeal to be preferred. Against which this writ appeal is
preferred.
7. The primary contention of the appellant is with regard to the violation of
principles of natural justice while issuing Ext.P6 order by the 3rd respondent as he
was not given an opportunity of being heard prior to the passing of Ext.P6 order.
However, this contention was refuted by the learned Government Pleader by
handing over the hearing notice dated 27.07.2022 by the 3 rd respondent, in which
it appears that the petitioner was called for a hearing with sufficient documents on
02.08.2022 at 3 p.m. at the office of the 3rd respondent. Another document
2025:KER:49849
produced along with this hearing notice was the hearing note containing the
statement given by the appellant before the 3rd respondent on 02.08.2022 in which
it was contended that he obtained the property from Sri.Somasekharan Nair,
Smt.Padmakumari Amma, Smt.Chandralekha and Smt.Sreelekha and that he was
remitting the tax pertaining to the said property.
8. On going by this document handed over by the learned Government
Pleader, it appears that the contention with respect to the denial of hearing and
violation of principles of natural justice cannot be acceded to. The fact remains
whether the property claimed by the appellant was originally transferred by the
predecessors in interest as per sale deed No.1202/1996 dated 28.03.1996 as the
3rd respondent contends that the predecessors in interest were actually not in
possession of the extent of land claimed by the appellant.
9. We have heard Sri.Mohammed Shah for the appellant and Smt.B. Vinitha,
learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the official respondents.
10. Considering the aforementioned facts, it appears that it is a matter to be
decided on the factual issues. This factor is already identified by the learned Single
Judge and relegated the appellant to approach the appropriate authority by
invoking effective alternative statutory remedy and sufficient opportunity was
provided to prefer appeal by giving specific direction to consider the appeal
ignoring the delay in filing such appeal and taken all the safeguards to protect the
interest of the appellant.
11. In the aforementioned circumstances, we do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment. However, the time limit prescribed by the
learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that the appellant shall prefer a
statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent within two weeks from the date of
2025:KER:49849
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. On receiving the same, the 2 nd
respondent shall consider and pass appropriate orders within a further period of
one month from the date of receipt of the appeal so preferred. It is further made
clear that till such time as orders are passed in the appeal and the order
communicated to the appellant, no adverse action shall be initiated against the
appellant based on Ext.P6 order.
The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
Dr.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.M. MANOJ
JUDGE
ttb
