Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Mananchira Township Complex Pvt Ltd on 30 May, 2025
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
WA NOS.1154 & 1170 OF 2025 :1: 2025:KER:38016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 1154 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2025 IN RP NO.660 OF 2024 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN WP(C):
1 THE TAHSILDAR,
LAND RECORDS),TALUK OFFICE,PALACE ROAD,THRISSUR,
PIN - 680020
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
MARATHAKKARA VILLAGE,MARATHAKKARA P.O.,THRISSUR
DISTRICT, PIN - 680306
BY ADV SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.RENJITH
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
ITS PROJECT MANAGER,JOSEPH MARIADAS,S/O.JOSEPH,
PIN - 682304
ADV SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.05.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1170/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NOS.1154 & 1170 OF 2025 :2: 2025:KER:38016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1947
WA NO. 1170 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 21.01.2025 IN RP NO.705 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/REVIEW PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 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
BY ADV SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.RENJITH
WA NOS.1154 & 1170 OF 2025 :3: 2025:KER:38016
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
BY ADV SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.05.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.1154/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WA NOS.1154 & 1170 OF 2025 :4: 2025:KER:38016
(CR)
JUDGMENT
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
As both these Writ Appeals deal with the same issue, they are taken
up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment.
2. WA No.1154 of 2025 impugns the order dated 04.03.2025 in RP
No.660 of 2024, which in turn arises from WP(C).No.1397 of 2024. WA No.1170
of 2025, on the other hand, impugns the order dated 21.01.2025 in RP No.705
of 2024, which stems from WP(C).No.21925 of 2020.
3. WP(C).No.21925 of 2020 was preferred by the respondent herein,
who had obtained the land in question under assignment deeds. In the said
Writ Petition, the case of the respondent herein was that the land of the
respondent was shown as paddy land in the revenue records, whereas it was
actually reclaimed much prior to the coming into force of the Kerala
Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The land was apparently
converted after obtaining the necessary permissions from the competent
authorities under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967. The corresponding
orders under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order were issued in the year 1995. It
was when faced with a situation where, after the coming into force of the 2008
Act, the respondent could not mortgage the land on account of its erroneous
categorisation as paddy land in the revenue records, that he approached this
Court through WP(C).No.21925 of 2020 seeking directions to the revenue
WA NOS.1154 & 1170 OF 2025 :5: 2025:KER:38016
authorities to effect the necessary corrections in the revenue records.
4. A learned Single Judge, who considered the Writ Petition took note
of the judgment of this Court in Renji K Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer
[2019 (2) KLT 262] as also the judgment in Ipe Varghese v. Revenue
Divisional Officer [2020 (5) KLT 403], together with the orders that had
been obtained by the respondent/ his predecessor under the Kerala Land
Utilisation Order, and found that the land belonging to the respondent merited
classification as a puramboke land. The respondent was, therefore, permitted
to prefer an application for reassessment of the land and for correction of the
classification of the said land in the revenue records as purayidom/dry land.
The revenue authorities were also directed to consider the applications and to
carry out the corrections as directed by the learned Single Judge.
5. It would appear that in purported compliance with the directions
of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition referred above, the Tahsildar by
an order dated 18.03.2021 (produced as Ext.P12 in WP(C).No.21925 of 2020)
directed reclassification of the land as "Converted homestead" and ordered the
collection of land tax based on the said category change. Finding that the said
order passed by the Tahsildar was not in strict compliance with the directions
in the judgment dated 03.11.2020 of the learned Single Judge in
WP(C).No.21925 of 2020, the respondent herein once again approached this
Court through WP(C).No.1397 of 2024. This time around, another learned
Single Judge, who considered the Writ Petition found that the directions in the
WA NOS.1154 & 1170 OF 2025 :6: 2025:KER:38016
earlier judgment of this Court in WP(C).No.21925 of 2020 were clear and
unambiguous inasmuch as it had directed a reassessment of the land as
purayidom/dry land. The learned Judge, therefore, found that it was not open
to the Tahsildar to have corrected the description as "converted homestead" or
"land the character of which has been changed" etc. The learned Judge also
observed that the action of the Tahsildar was mischievous. The learned Single
Judge, thereafter, allowed the Writ Petition by quashing the order dated
18.03.2021 of the Tahsildar and directed him to pass a fresh order by assessing
the land as Purayidom/dry land in terms of the directions in the earlier
judgment dated 03.11.2020 in WP(C).No.21925 of 2020.
6. We are told that the Tahsildar in question has since passed an
order dated 11.06.2024 in blatant violation of even the direction of the learned
Single Judge in the judgment dated 28.02.2024 in WP(C).No.1397 of 2024.
Since we are informed by the learned counsel for the respondent herein that
contempt proceedings have been initiated before the learned Single Judge
against the last mentioned order passed by the Tahsildar, we do not intend to
state anything with regard to the legality of the said order passed by the
Tahsildar. At this stage, we might only express our surprise and disapproval of
the manner in which the Tahsildar has chosen to act in the face of positive
directions issued from this Court.
7. Probably with a view to salvage the situation, and justify the
actions of the Tahsildar, the State chose to file Review Petitions, not only
WA NOS.1154 & 1170 OF 2025 :7: 2025:KER:38016
against the earlier judgment of the learned Single Judge in WP(C).No.21925 of
2020 but also against the subsequent judgment of the learned Single Judge in
WP(C).No.1397 of 2024. The first Review Petition, namely, R.P No.705 of 2024
was dismissed by the learned Single Judge concerned by an order dated
21.01.2025, citing the issue of limitation and finding the Review Petition to be
belated. RP No.660 of 2024 was similarly dismissed by an order dated
04.03.2025 by the learned Single Judge, who had decided WP(C).No1397 of
2024. The Writ appeals before us impugn the judgments in WP(C).No.21925 of
2020 and WP(C).No1397 of 2024 after a gap of five years and one year,
respectively.
We have deemed it necessary to narrate the aforementioned
sequence of events so as to clearly bring out the unfair manner in which the
State has chosen to harass a citizen through unnecessary litigation. The
directions in the earlier Writ Petition (WP(C).No.21925 of 2020) were not
complied with for almost four years, and that led the respondent herein to
approach this Court through a fresh Writ Petition. Despite a reiteration of the
earlier directions by another learned Single Judge, who considered the
subsequent Writ Petition, the Tahsildar has chosen not to comply with the
directions of this Court. We see absolutely no justification for the non-
compliance with the directions of this Court for, even on merits the contentions
now advanced before us by the learned Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the appellant State cannot be legally countenanced. The State must
realise that they do not stand in a privileged position vis-a-vis a citizen when it
WA NOS.1154 & 1170 OF 2025 :8: 2025:KER:38016
comes to matters of litigation and the procedures to be followed while pursuing
the same. On the contrary, their actions in this regard must be informed by
fairness and reasonableness. The actions of the State in the pursuit of this
litigation smacks of unreasonable and unfairness for which they must
necessarily be put to terms. We, therefore, dismiss these Writ Appeals with a
cost of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only), which the State shall
pay to the respondent herein within three weeks from today. We also grant
liberty to the State to recover the said amount from the Tahsildar concerned, if
the State finds that he was responsible for the delayed actions that invited the
order of costs from this court.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
mns
WA NOS.1154 & 1170 OF 2025 :9: 2025:KER:38016
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2024 IN
WP(C) NO. 1397 OF 2024.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK SHOWING THE
ENTRIES OF THE PETITIONER PROPERTY WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RDO DATED
25.01.2024 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURE
OFFICER DATED 29.04.2024 IN FORM 5
APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FINAL
DATA BANK SHOWING THE PETITIONER PROPERTY
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
WA NOS.1154 & 1170 OF 2025 :10: 2025:KER:38016
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE I TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT DATA BANK SHOWING THE
ENTRIES OF THE PETITIONER PROPERTY WITH WITH
ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE II TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 5 APPLICATION SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RDO DATED
25.01.2024 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE AGRICULTURE
OFFICER DATED 29.04.2024 IN FORM 5
APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FINAL
DATA BANK SHOWING THE PETITIONER PROPERTY
WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.
ANNEXURE V TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 11.06.2024
OF TAHASILDAR (LR) THRISSUR WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.
