Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1945 PETITIONER: S.AJITH AGED 48 YEARS S/O SASIDHARAN, NOW RESIDING AT 'DHANYA, DEVASWOM BOARD JUNCTION, KOWDIAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001 2 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 033 3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI, PIN-685 584 4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER IDUKKI, PIN- 685 584 5 TAHSILDAR THODUPUZHA, PIN- 685 585 6 VILLAGE OFFICER VANNAPURAM, PIN- 685 607 7* ADDL.R7.THE VANNAPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VANNAPPURAM.P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 607. *(IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06.12.19 IN IA BY ADVS. SRI.MOHAMMED ANZAR K.J., SPL.G.P. FOR REVENUE K.C.JOSEPH SRI.MOHAMMED ANZAR K.J. SPL.G.P. FOR REVENUE SRI.RIYAL DEVASY - GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
23.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who claims title over certain extents of land on
the strength of Ext.P1 - Sale Deed executed by an entity called “The Backward Class Christian Federation” and Ext.P2 - “Patta” issued thereafter, impugns Exts.P3 and P4 orders, as per which, the 4 th respondent - Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and the 3 rd respondent - District Collector respectively have ordered cancellation of the same and for resumption of the land covered by it.
2. Sri.M.Narendrakumar - learned counsel for the petitioner,
contended that Ext.P3 order was passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer without hearing his client and therefore, that it suffers from the vice of violation of the principles of natural justice; and added that even though this contention was specifically raised before the 3 rd respondent - District Collector, said Authority has now issued Ext.P4 confirming Ext.P3, affirming that said order had been issued by the RDO without hearing his client but holding that said vice is cured by his proceedings, because he had given an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. He vehemently argued that hearing in Ext.P4 can only be construed to be a post decisional one because the Authority at the first instance was the RDO, who ought to have given the petitioner such facility, before Ext.P3 could have been issued. He contended that, therefore, Ext.P3 itself was infirm and that it could not have been cured through a subsequent hearing by the District Collector, as has been stated in Ext.P4. He concluded the submissions saying that this is more so because, his client has a specific case that Ext.P2 - “Patta” has been issued under Rule 24 of the Land Assignment Rules, 1964 and therefore that, it can be cancelled only by the Government, and not by the RDO.
3. Sri.Riyal Devassy - learned Government Pleader, in response,
argued that Ext.P3 is irreproachable because all the reasons for cancellation of Ext.P2 - “Patta” have been detailed and explained therein. He, however, expressly conceded that the RDO had not heard the petitioner before Ext.P3 had been issued, but argued that this would be of no relevance because Ext.P4 order of the District Collector was settled only after that opportunity was given to him. As regards the contention of the petitioner, that the RDO did not have the jurisdiction to invoke proceedings for cancellation of Ext.P2 - “Patta”, the learned Government Pleader submitted that this is untenable because said Authority certainly has the statutory competence to do so.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the 7th respondent - Panchayat, adopted the afore submissions of the learned Government and prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
5. As I have indicated above, the primary contentions of the
petitioner are two, namely (a) that Ext.P3 suffers from the vice of not having been issued, after affording an opportunity of being heard to him; and (b) that the RDO did not obtain the jurisdiction to have issued Ext.P3 and that it was only the Government who could have done so.
6. As regards the competence of the RDO, it was always open to
the petitioner to have raised before him, provided he had been given an opportunity of being heard. However, Ext.P3, admittedly, has been issued without any such benefit and obviously, therefore, the subsequent hearing by the District Collector - which certainly can only be seen to be a post decisional hearing - cannot cure the defect which was inherent in Ext.P3. Pertinently Ext.P4 order confirms Ext.P3, but says that the afore said inherent defect must be construed to be cured by the hearing which the District Collector gave to the petitioner. I am afraid that these findings in Ext.P4 cannot find my favour because, as I have recorded above, the petitioner’s contention, that the RDO did not obtain any jurisdiction to initiate proceedings, had not been considered by the said Authority and Ext.P3 had been settled by him even without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Such an inherent defect could not have been cured by a superior Authority exercising statutory appellate/revisional function and the hearing by him can only be seen to be a post decisional exercise.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Exts.P3 and P4; with a consequential direction to the 4 th respondent - RDO to reconsider the entire matter, after affording the petitioner, the Panchayat and any other person who may be
interested of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order
and necessary action, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I clarify that since I have not entered into the merits of any of other rival contentions between the parties, they are all left open to be impelled by the petitioner or by other parties and to be decided by the RDO in terms of law, including the question of his jurisdiction to initiate action under the relevant Rules. Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to the parties, the petitioner shall maintain complete status quo on the property in question, without causing any further constructions on it or attempting to change its tenor or nature.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/23.6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29565/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2625/2005 OF SRO,THODUPUZHA EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO.LA.3/80 ISSUED UNDE RULE 9920 OF THE KERALA LAND ASSIGNMENT RULES,1964 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 06-05- 2011 ISSUED BY THE RDO, IDUKKI EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.C1- DISTRICT COLLECOR, IDUKKI EXHIBITP5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.LRJ3- LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R7(a) TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.53/TDPA/2014/M(WR) DATED 19-2-2014 RECOMMENDED AND FORWARDED THE REPRESENTATION DATED 11-02-2014 OF THE PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT R7(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C1-4553/2013 DATED NIL 12-2015 BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI TO THE TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA.