Kerala High Court
A.K.Pappy vs State Of Kerala on 21 March, 2025
RSA NO. 120 OF 2025 1
2025:KER:25085
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 30TH PHALGUNA, 1946
RSA NO. 120 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.11.2024 IN AS NO.29 OF
2023 OF SUB COURT, SULTHANBATHERY
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.03.2023 IN OS NO.263 OF 2017
OF MUNSIFF - MAGISTRATE COURT, SULTHANBATHERI
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:
A.K.PAPPY
AGED 68 YEARS
S/O.KANDAN, (RETIRED DEPUTY COLLEGE (RR), COLLECTORATE,
WAYANAD, RESIDING AT ALUMMEL VEEDU, AMBALAVAYAL P.O.,
AMBALAVAYAL VILLAGE, SULTHANBATHERY TALUK WAYANAD DISTRICT.,
PIN - 673592
BY ADVS.
PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHEER
AKASH S.
GIRISH KUMAR M S
SRIVIDYA K
RICHU THERESA ROBERT
RAJALAKSHMI.R.
RADHIKA SUDHEER
RSA NO. 120 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:25085
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD,
COLLECTORATE, KALPETTA NORTH P.O., KALPETTA VILLAGE, VYTHIRI
TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673576
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.DENNY DEVASSY-SR.GP
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RSA NO. 120 OF 2025 3
2025:KER:25085
JUDGMENT
1. The defendant in a suit for realisation of money is the appellant.
The State Government has filed the suit for retaliation of
Rs.7,85,520/- as the amount due to the State on account of the
occupation of the official quarters by the defendant after the
transfer of the defendant from the station.
2. The defendant started occupying the Government quarters
No.III/3 at Mananthavady as per Ext.A2 proceedings
23.01.2007, when he was posted as Additional Tahsildar
Mananthavady. Consequent to his transfer to the post of
Tahsildar Vythiri, he relieved from the Additional Tahsildar
Mananthavady on 30.01.2008. In spite of giving notice to the
defendant to vacate the quarters, the quarters were not
vacated and no reply was submitted.
3. As per the plaint, the defendant was in unauthorized
occupation of the quarters from 01.03.2008 to 30.04.2012
while in service and from 01.05.2012 to 19.05.2015 after his
retirement. The quarters were vacated as per Ext A8 Order
dated 20.05.2015, invoking the provisions of the Kerala Public
2025:KER:25085
Buildings Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants Act, 1968.
4. The defendant resisted the suit contending that he surrendered
possession of the quarters on 30.01.2008 and handed over the
key with the electricity and water bills to the Estate Officer of
the plaintiff. Thereafter, the quarters were in the occupation of
Paulson, Tahsildar, from 08.01.2008 to 15.04.2008, A.L.Antony,
Tahsildar, from 11.02.2009 to 19.05.2010, Gopinathan,
Tahsildar, Kannur, from 01.06.2010 till 31.01.2013 and V.K.
Prasanth, who was not eligible to get quarters earmarked for
gazetted officers. In order to substantiate the surrender of the
premises, the defendant produced Exts.B1 and B2, which are
carbon copies of communications made by him to the
authorities intimating the surrender of quarters.
5. The Trial Court decreed the suit, rejecting the contentions
raised by the defendant.
6. The defendant filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Court
and the same was dismissed, confirming the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court.
7. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Pirappancode
V.S.Sudheer.
2025:KER:25085
8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
plaintiff did not discharge his burden to prove the plaint claim.
The plaintiff has not explained as to why there occurred a huge
delay in filing the suit. He retired from service on 30.04.2012,
whereas the suit was filed only on 30.10.2017. If the defendant
had not vacated the premises in time, the proceedings would
have been initiated against him much before his retirement. It
alone reveals the falsity of the allegation. The Trial Court, as
well as the First Appellate Court, did not consider Exts.B1 and
B2 documents produced by the defendant to prove the
surrender of the building. Now a huge liability is imposed on a
retired employee on the basis of an untenable claim.
9. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader contended
that the occupation of the quarters is admitted by the
defendant. The defendant could not produce any document to
show that he vacated the premises before the date of the Ext.A8
Order. Ext.A8 order was implemented by breaking open the
premises. If the defendant had vacated the premises and others
had occupied the quarters as contended by him, there would
be official records for the same. The defendant could have
2025:KER:25085
procured official records and produced the same before the
court.
10. I have considered the rival contentions.
11. It is seen that the defendant retired from service on 30.04.2012
and for getting retirement benefits, he had been filing various
cases before the court. Ext.A9 is the order of the Administrative
Tribunal in which the Tribunal held that after three years of
retirement the liability cannot be recovered from DCRG and
civil suit is the appropriate remedy of the Government to
recover the said amount. From the said observation, it is clear
that all along the plaintiff had been waiting for recovery from
the pensionary benefits of the plaintiff without filing the suit.
On account of this reason, the plaintiff delayed the filing of the
suit for recovery of the amount. The occupation of the
Government quarters by the defendant when he was
transferred to the post of Additional Tahsildar, Mananthavady,
is admitted by the defendant. The case of the defendant is that
he surrendered possession of the quarters on 30.01.2008. If he
had surrendered the quarters on 30.01.2008 as contended by
him, there would have been official records for it and he could
2025:KER:25085
have summoned those official records to substantiate the same.
Exts.B1 and B2 are the two communications sent by the
defendant to the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Buildings,
Mananthavady, dated 31.01.2008. The plaintiff has denied
receipt of those documents. In such a case, if the said
communication was given to the Assistant Engineer, PWD
Buildings, Mananthavady, the defendant should have taken
steps to prove that it was received by the said authority. No
such steps are taken by the defendant. The specific case of the
defendant in the written statement is that after vacating the
premises by the defendant, the same was occupied by his
successors in office. Specific names of the persons are referred
to in the written statement. He could have summoned those
officials to prove that the quarters were occupied by those
officials during the disputed period. That was not done. If the
quarters were allotted to those officials, there would have been
official records to prove the same. They were also not
summoned by the defendant. The defendant was holding the
post of Tahsildar, and he very well knew the details of the
official records available with respect to the allotment and
2025:KER:25085
occupation of the government quarters. Hence, the refusal of
the defendant to summon the relevant records to prove the
contention that he vacated the premises on 30.01.2008 is fatal
to the case pleaded by the defendant. Ext.A12 is the Notice
issued by the District Collector demanding to clear the liability.
The defendant did not send any Reply to Ext.A12. The
defendant has not disputed the quantification of the liability.
There is no substantial question of law that arises in this
Appeal. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
Shg/-XX
