[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Abraham Philip vs The State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2026
Author: Devan Ramachandran
Bench: Devan Ramachandran
2026:KER:29457
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1948
WA NO. 814 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.05.2024 IN WP(C) NO.41427 OF
2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WPC:
ABRAHAM PHILIP, AGED 77 YEARS
S/O. LATE SRI. ABRAHAM THOMAS,
VALLIYATHU VEEDU, NEDUMON P.O,
EZHAMKULAM, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PIN - 691556
BY ADVS.
SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR
SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL
SMT.N.G.SINDHU
SMT.SUNITHA G.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS AND ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 IN
WPC:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA
DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689645
3 THE THAHASILDAR, THALUK OFFICE, ADOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691523
4 DILEEP THOMAS ABRAHAM, AGED 59 YEARS,
2D BLOCK 2, MAY FLOWER PALM GROVE,
CENTRAL STUDIO ROAD, COIMBATORE,
PIN - 641005
2026:KER:29457
WA 814/26
2
5 SATHEEP T. MATHEW, AGED 54 YEARS,
VALIYATHU HOUSE, EZHAMKULAM, NEDUMON P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 691556
GP - SRI. SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
31.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:29457
WA 814/26
3
JUDGMENT
Devan Ramachandran, J.
The appellant applied for assignment of the land involved in
this case, through Ext.P9 application, relying upon Ext.P3
judgment which, he says, he obtained from the Court of the
learned Munsiff, Adoor in O.S.No.251/1988 and 345/1988.
According to the appellant, the learned Munsiff had permitted the
Revenue Authorities to assign the land to him; and alleges that no
action was thereupon taken, thus constraining him to make Ext.P9
application.
2. However, Ext.P9 was rejected by the District Collector,
through Ext.P7 order dated 30.10.2012; and the appellant
challenged it in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge
dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the appellant has no right
to seek assignment for the reasons recorded in Ext.P7; against
which, the appellant has preferred this Appeal.
3. Sri.Suraj Kumar R. - learned counsel for the appellant,
read to us extracts of Ext.P3 judgment, to the effect that, even as
2026:KER:29457
per the Revenue Authorities, the proceedings for assignment of the
land to his client was in progress, but had been stopped only on
account of the pendency of the suits. He argued that when the
suits had been disposed of through Ext.P3 judgment, the
competent Authorities ought to have continued with the
assignment and to have granted his client his land. He explained
that, it is when this was not done, that his client approached the
District Collector through Ext.P9 application.
4. Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose - learned Government
Pleader, however, submitted that the facts afore stated are not
accurate because, in paragraph 3 of the pleadings in the Writ
Petition itself the appellant admits unequivocally that the earlier
proceedings for assignment of the land, which was numbered as
L.A.15/1983 - which has been mentioned in Ext.P3 judgment also
- stood closed because it was found that the appellant has more
than two acres of land and Rs.3,000/- in annual income. He
argued that, in such circumstances, the appellant can seek no
benefit pursuant to L.A.15/1983, especially when he invoked no
2026:KER:29457
remedy against its closure; and consequently, Ext.P9 can only be
seen to be an application for assignment which, however, cannot
be acceded to on account of the Government Order referred to in
Ext.P7. He asserted that the learned Single Judge has assessed the
situation correctly and prayed that this Appeal be dismissed.
5. There is force in the afore submissions of the learned
Government Pleader because, the appellant, admittedly, did not
pursue further proceedings consequent to the closure of
L.A.15/1983. In Ext.P3 judgment, the learned Munsiff has only
recorded that the Revenue Authorities had averred that such
proceedings were pending at that time. Therefore, subsequently,
when it was closed, it was up to the appellant to have taken
necessary action, but he chose not to do so.
6. It is after all the above that, the appellant preferred
Ext.P9, which, at the best, is only an application to the District
Collector for assignment; but which has been rejected through
Ext.P7 saying that no assignment in title could be given to the
appellant though he can be favoured with a lease relying upon the
2026:KER:29457
Government Order mentioned therein, namely GO(MS)280/2011/Rd
dated 27.07.2011. Indubitably, this Government Order is not under
challenge, nor has the appellant staked any claim contrary to its
tenor.
In the afore circumstances, we see no reason to intervene
because, we find the learned Single Judge to have concluded
correctly. However, we clarify that this does not preclude any
rights that may be available to the appellant in law, including
against the aforementioned Government Order.
This Appeal is resultantly dismissed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
BASANT BALAJI
JUDGE
RR
