[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
B.Vijayan vs The State Of Kerala on 6 January, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
OP(KAT)No.383 of 2020 2026:KER:27
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 16TH POUSHA, 1947
OP(KAT) NO. 383 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2019 IN OA NO.1371 OF 2018 OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PETITIONERS:
1 B.VIJAYAN, S/O.BALAN, AGED 63 YEARS,VIPIN NIVAS,
MADATHILNADA, THIRUVALLAM P O THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 27(DIED)
2 ADDL.P2 VASANTHA ,W/O LATE B.VIJAYAN,AGED 65,VIPIN NIVAS,
MADATHILNADA, THIRUVALLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-27
[THE SECOND ADDITIONAL PETITIONER IS IMPLEADED AS THE LEGAL
HEIR OF THE DECEASED PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED
25/11/2025 IN IA 2/2025 IN OP(KAT)383/2020]
BY ADV SHRI.J.S.AJITHKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA-695001.
2 THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY,DIRECTORATE OF SURVEY, VAZHUTHACAUD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014, KERALA.
3 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY,OFFICE OF DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
SURVEY, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN-691013.
BY ADV A.J VARGHESE, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
15.12.2025, THE COURT ON 6.1.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
OP(KAT)No.383 of 2020 2026:KER:27
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The applicant in O.A. No.1371 of 2018 on the file of the
Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (the
'Tribunal', in short) filed this original petition, invoking the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging Ext.P6 order dated 14.08.2019
passed by the Tribunal in that original application. During the
pendency of this original petition, the original petitioner died and
hence his wife, being the legal representative, is impleaded as
additional 2nd petitioner.
2. Going by the original application, the 1st petitioner retired
as Deputy Director of Survey, Pathanamthitta, on 31.03.2011.
While working as Deputy Director of Survey, Kollam, in pursuance
to the instructions from the Director of Survey, the 1st petitioner
disposed of a complaint made by one Shri Udayakumar, alleging
irregularities in the Resurvey conducted on the land purchased and
held by him in Adichanallur Village in Kollam District. He had
followed all procedures before arriving at the decision and
corrected the Resurvey records, under intimation to the Director
of Survey. Subsequently, it was alleged that the 1 st petitioner
OP(KAT)No.383 of 2020 2026:KER:27
made over puramboke land to a private party and thereby caused
loss to the Government. Disciplinary action was initiated against
the 1st petitioner while in service and finalised long after his
retirement, and his pension was reduced to the minimum.
Challenging that decision, the 1st petitioner approached the
Tribunal by filing O.A.No.2654 of 2013. The O.A. was disposed of,
directing the 1st petitioner to prefer a Review petition within a
period of one month to the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent
to dispose of the same within a period of three months, by the
Tribunal vide order dated 07.02.2017. Thereafter, the 1st petitioner
preferred the review petition on 01.03.2017, and the Department
of Revenue, Survey and Land Records, vide GO (ord)
1710/2018/Revenue dated 16.05.2018, rejected the Review
Petition. The facts of the case show that there was no loss of land
to the Government, and the order of the Revenue is arbitrary, ultra
vires and lacking any bona fides. Aggrieved by this order, the 1 st
petitioner filed the original application under Section 19 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking an order to set aside
the order of the 1st respondent, reducing the pension of 1st
petitioner to the minimum and the subsequent order in the review
OP(KAT)No.383 of 2020 2026:KER:27
petition and to direct the 1st respondent to grant all retirement
benefits to the 1st petitioner from the date of his superannuation
with interest and cost.
3. In the original application, on behalf of the 2nd
respondent, a reply statement dated 10.12.2018 was filed,
opposing the reliefs sought. To that reply statement, the 1st
petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 04.02.2019, producing therewith
Annexures A29 to A31 documents. Thereafter, on behalf of the
1st respondent, a reply statement dated 12.07.2019 was filed.
After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the materials on
record, the Tribunal, by the impugned Ext.P6 order dated
14.08.2019, dismissed the original application.
4. Being aggrieved, the 1st petitioner filed the present
original petition.
5. On 07.01.2021, when this original petition came up for
consideration, this Court directed the petitioner's counsel to
produce a copy of the reply statement filed by the 1 st respondent
in Annexure A11 O.A.No.2654 of 2013, within two weeks.
6. On 03.02.2021, when the original petition came up for
consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
OP(KAT)No.383 of 2020 2026:KER:27
that though the petitioner had made an application before the
Tribunal for the grant of a certified copy of the reply statement
filed by the 1st respondent in Annexure A11 O.A. No.2654 of 2013,
the same had not been secured. Therefore, this Court directed the
Registry of the Tribunal to forward an attested legible copy of the
reply statement filed by the 1st respondent in O.A.No.2654 of
2013. The learned Senior Government Pleader was also requested
to ascertain whether a copy of the said reply statement could be
made available for perusal of this Court.
7. As directed, the Registrar of the Tribunal, along with a
letter dated 05.02.2021, forwarded a copy of the reply statement
dated 19.01.2017 filed on behalf of the 1st respondent in O.A.No.
2654 of 2013. Similarly, along with a memo dated 16.02.2021,
the learned Senior Government Pleader also produced a copy of
the said reply statement.
8. On 18.07.2025, when this original petition came up for
consideration, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader
to get instructions based on Annexures A9 and A14 as to whether
any steps have been taken by the Government regarding the land
loss. If so, the details of such proceedings were also directed to
OP(KAT)No.383 of 2020 2026:KER:27
be placed on record. In pursuance of that direction, the Additional
Secretary, Revenue Department, filed an affidavit dated
25.10.2025 in the original petition.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the 2nd petitioner and the
learned Senior Government Pleader.
10. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the
power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under
clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall
have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
11. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil
[(2010) 8 SCC 329] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope
and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of
the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both
administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and
orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way
as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference
under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the
wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice
remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public
OP(KAT)No.383 of 2020 2026:KER:27
confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to the High Court.
12. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
[(2010) 9 SCC 385], while considering the nature and scope of
the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Apex
Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of
the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate
courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the
powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The
High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they
act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The
exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised
constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to
correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting
within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can
be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice.
13. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan
Transport Corporation [(2015) 12 SCC 39] the Apex Court
OP(KAT)No.383 of 2020 2026:KER:27
held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court can
interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there
has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and
courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and
manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice
have been flouted.
14. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1)
KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well
settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in
proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this
Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower
court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only
supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court.
Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is
called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal
has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law.
15. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred
OP(KAT)No.383 of 2020 2026:KER:27
to supra, the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit in appeal
over the findings recorded by a lower court or Tribunal. The
supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of
the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within
the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under
Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or
judgment of a lower court or Tribunal has been passed in grave
dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles
of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is
called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or
tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably
perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower
court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law
or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or
the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted.
16. We have carefully perused the materials on record, the
impugned order of the Tribunal and appreciated the arguments
addressed at the Bar.
17. The 1st petitioner was retired from service on 31.03.2011
OP(KAT)No.383 of 2020 2026:KER:27
as Deputy Director of Survey. At that time a disciplinary
proceedings initiated under the provisions of the Kerala Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1960, were
pending against him. For that reason, his retirement benefits were
not sanctioned. Though this Court in W.P.(C)No.11101 of 2011
directed the disciplinary proceedings to be completed within three
months and thereafter by Annexure A3 order, extended the said
time, no further disciplinary proceedings were taken by the
Government. By Annexure A4 order dated 16.12.2011, the
pensionary benefits were directed to be released to the 1st
petitioner by the Government. Later, the Government issued
Annexure A7 notice dated 23.03.2012 calling upon the 1st
petitioner to submit his explanation as to why his monthly pension
should not be reduced to the minimum as per Rule 3 of Part III
Kerala Service Rules ('KSR' in short). Subsequently, the said
proposal was confirmed by Annexure A9 order dated 31.08.2013
by reducing the monthly pension of the 1st petitioner to the
minimum. By Annexure A10 order dated 08.02.2016 of the
Principal Secretary, Board of Revenue (E) Department, it was
directed to recover the excess amount paid to the 1st petitioner as
OP(KAT)No.383 of 2020 2026:KER:27
per Annexure A4 order and to recover 40% of the minimum
pension towards recovery of that amount. Though the 1 st
petitioner challenged Annexure A9 order before the Tribunal by
filing O.A.No.2654 of 2013, by Annexure A11 order dated
07.02.2017, the Tribunal disposed of that original application,
permitting the 1st petitioner to prefer a review petition before the
Government in accordance with Note 1 to Rule 59(b) of Part III
KSR. However, the review petition filed by the 1st petitioner was
dismissed by the Government by Annexure A14 order dated
16.05.2018.
18. As found by the Tribunal, it has already been concluded
in Annexure A11 order dated 07.02.2017 in O.A.No.2654 of 2013,
that the order passed against the 1st petitioner is under Rule 59(b)
of Part III KSR; and it is not necessary to conduct a detailed
enquiry following the procedure in KCS (CCA) Rules. Noting that
other cases were pending against the 1st petitioner and his service
was not satisfactory, Annexure A14 order was passed by the
Government. In the affidavit dated 25.10.2025 filed in this original
petition by the Additional Secretary to the Government, it is stated
that there were two other disciplinary action files pending against
OP(KAT)No.383 of 2020 2026:KER:27
the 1st petitioner and apart from those two pending disciplinary
proceedings, three other disciplinary actions were finalised against
him. The Tribunal, considering the fact that Annexure A9 order
was issued only on 31.08.2013 and that the monthly pension of
the 1st petitioner is reduced to the minimum, directed no further
recovery of the amount paid to the 1st petitioner towards the
pensionary benefits.
19. Having considered the materials placed on records and
the submissions made at the Bar in the light of the judgments
referred to above, we find no sufficient ground to hold the finding
of the Tribunal as perverse or illegal, which warrants interference
by exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
OP(KAT)No.383 of 2020 2026:KER:27
APPENDIX OF OP(KAT) NO. 383 OF 2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A2 COPY OF MEMO NO.55306/E2/10 REVENUE DATED
28/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 A3 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT
OF KERALA IN CM APPEAL 5447/2011 IN WP(C)
NO.11101/2011 DATED 17/11.2011.
EXHIBIT P1 A4 COPY OF GO (RT) NO6074/11/RD DATED 16/12/2011
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 A5 COPY OF WRITTEN DEFENCE SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT TO THE ABOVE MEMO OF CHARGES.
EXHIBIT P1 A6 COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT
DATED 13/07/2011 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 A7 COPY OF SHOW CAUSE LETTER
NO.55306/E2/10/REVENUE 23.03.2012 ISSUED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 A8 COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT TO THE
ABOVE NOTICE.
EXHIBIT P1 A9 COPY OF GO (ORD) NO.4797/13/REVENUE DATED
31.08/2013 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, BOARD OF
REVENUE (E) DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P1 A10 COPY OF LETTER NO.10401/E2/16/REVENUE DATED
08/02/2016 BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE (E) DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P1 A11 ORDER OF HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL IN OA NO.2654/2013 DATED 07/02/2017.
EXHIBIT P1 A12 PETITION DATED 01.03.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE
APPLICANT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 A13 STATEMENT DATED 25/08/2017 GIVEN BY THE
APPLICANT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN
PERSON.
EXHIBIT P1 A 14 G O (ORD) NO. 1710/2018/REVENUE DATED
16/05/2018 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY, REVENUE(E) DEPARTMENT.
EXHIBIT P1 A15 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 19/04/2006 MADE
BY SRI UDAYAKUMAR TO THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY,
TRIVANDRUM.
EXHIBIT P1 A16 COPY OF LETTER NO.SURVEY 3/24107/06/ DATED
23.07.2007 OF DY.DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, KOLLAM
TO THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY.
EXHIBIT P1 A17 COPY OF THE FILE MAINTAINED BY THE
DIRECTORATE ON THE DISPOSAL OF THE PUBLIC
OP(KAT)No.383 of 2020 2026:KER:27
COMPAINT, DURING THE PERIOD FROM 28/06/2007
TO 25/10/2008.
EXHIBIT P1 A18 COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 11.02.2008 MADE BY
THE APPLICANT AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR TO THE
DIRECTOR, TVM.
EXHIBIT P1 A 20 COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
SURVEY TO THE DIRECTOR, ON THE DISPUTED LAND.
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION
NO.1371/2018 DATED 12.07/2018 ON THE FILE OF
KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM .
EXHIBIT P1 A22 COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER MAINTAINED
ADICHANALLUR VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P1 A19 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS HELD BY THE DEPUTY
DIRECTOR ON 31/03/2008.
EXHIBIT P1 A23 COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF TAX PAID BY THE
COMPLAINANT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR.
EXHIBIT P1 A24 REPORT OF THE SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, H
SECTION, SURVEY DIRECTORATE IN FILE NO.A1-
8888/2006ON THE DISPUTED LAND.
EXHIBIT P1 A25 COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 22.12.98 ISSUED
BY THE DIRECTORATE.
EXHIBIT P1 A26 CIRCULAR DATED 01.01.2000 ISSUED BY THE
SURVEY DIRECTORATE.
EXHIBIT P1 A 27 COPY OF THE FILE NOTE IN THE DISPOSAL OF THE
APPLICANT, MAINTAINED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P1 A28 COPY OF G O (ORD)NO.1241/10/REV DATED
17.03.2010 PM ASSIGNMENT OF ADDITIONAL CHARGE
IN TVM TALUK.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT DATED
04.01.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER OF THE PETITIONER
DATED 04.02.2019.
EXHIBIT P3 A29 COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY 1ST
RESPONDENT IN OA NO.2654/2013.
EXHIBIT P3 A30 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH
COURT IN WA NO.934/1989 DATED 12.02.1990
EXHIBIT P3 A31 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH
COURT IN OP NO.5112, 10922 OF 1994 DATED
03.03.1999.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 20.07.2019.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/02/2017 IN
OA NO.2654/2013 ON THE FILE OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, TRIVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.08.2019 IN
OP(KAT)No.383 of 2020 2026:KER:27
OA NO.1371/2018 ON THE FILE OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF THE
RESPONDENTS DATED 19.1.2017 IN O.A.NO-
2654/2013 ON THE FILE OF KERALA
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P1 A21 COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED
BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KOTTIYAM DATED
15/02/2005.
EXHIBIT P1 A1 COPY OF LETTER NO. 55306/E2/10/REVENUE DATED
28/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
