Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 18TH MAGHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 1786 OF 2022 PETITIONERS:
1 SURESH AGED 49 YEARS, S/O UTHAMAN MADHAVASADHAN, NEDUMPANA PO, NEDUMPANA CHERRY, NEDUMPANA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, KERALA - 691576, CHAIRMAN OF SREE NARAYANA DEVASWOM TRUST, HAVING REGISTRATION NO. 13/2019.QLN, PALLIMON, KOLLAM. 2 SHAJI AGED 56 YEARS S/O GOVINDAN, VELLILAZHAKATHU VEETTIL, ELAMADU PO, VELLACHALIL, ELAMADU MURI, ELAMADU VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, PIN - 691533 BY ADVS. JOHNSON GOMEZ DINOOP P.D. S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA) MOHAMED SHEHARAN SANJAY JOHNSON PARSHATHY S.R. SANJITH JOHNSON SREEDEVI S. JOHN GOMEZ
RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE BUILDING, CIVIL STATION ROAD, KAANKATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM, KERALA, PIN - 691013 3 TAHASILDAR, OFFICE OF TAHASILDAR, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN-691506 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ODANAVATTOM ODANAVATTOM PO, KOLLAM, PIN - 691512 5 VELIYAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH ODANAVATTOM PO, KOLLAM- 691 512, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV M.R.SASITH SMT. MABLE .C .KURIAN SR.G.PAND SRI. SASITH.S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 7th day of February, 2022. The Petitioners have approached this Court
asserting that the property involved in this case was purchased in the name of “Sree Narayana Devaswom Trust”, through Exts.P1 and P2. They say that, however, when they applied for transfer of Registry of the said property in the name of the Trust, it was refused to be done, saying that a portion of the same is included in the “Muttara Maruthimala Eco-Tourism Project”, propounded and completed by the fifth respondent - Veliyam Grama Panchayat.
2. The petitioners allege that the afore assertion
of the official respondents is untrue and that, in spite of this, the Village Officer issued Exts.P3 and P4 to them, saying that it is only after a report is obtained from the Tahsildar (Land Records), can any further action be taken on their request.
3. The petitioners contend that Exts.P3 and P4 are unnecessary because the ownership and possession of the “Trust” over the property is indisputable from
Exts.P1 and P2. They, therefore, pray that the fourth respondent - Village Officer, be directed to effect transfer of Registry of the property covered by the aforesaid title documents, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
4. Sri.Sasith Panicker, appearing on behalf of the learned Standing Counsel for the fifth respondent - submitted that “Muttara Maruthimala Eco-Tourism Project” has already been completed and that petitioners cannot claim possession over any extent of land covered
by the same. She submitted that, therefore, if Exts.P1 and P2 documents have taken any portion of the said property, same will have to be excluded, when the request of the petitioners is considered. She, therefore, prayed that, if this Court is inclined to grant the petitioners any relief, then the competent official of the Panchayat may also be allowed an opportunity of being heard.
5. Smt.Mable C Kurian - learned Senior
Government Pleader, submitted that as is luculent from Ext.P3 and P4, the Village Officer is now incapacinated from taking any decision because the jurisdictional Tahsildar - who will have to first verify the extent of the land available under Exts.P1 and P2, after excluding that portion which has been taken over by the Panchayat for the aforementioned Eco-Tourism Project - has not yet concluded upon it. She, therefore, prayed that this Court dismiss this writ petition and direct the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional Tahsildar (Land Records)
6. When I consider and evaluate the afore
submissions, it is inevitable that the official respondents only take the stand that, Exts.P1 and P2 title documents, also cover the extents in the possession of the fifth respondent - Panchayat also. This is essentially a question of fact, which cannot be considered by this Court or be spoken affirmatively, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. I am, therefore, firmly of the view that parties must be heard by the jurisdictional Tahsildar (Land Records), who will, thereafter, have to take a decision as to the actual extents that can be claimed by the petitioners or by the “Trust”, under Exts.P1 and P2.
8. At this time, the learned Senior Government
Pleader intervened to say that the jurisdictional Tahsildar (Land Records) cannot take a decision at this moment because the second respondent - District Collector has already sought for a report relating to the property
covered by the Eco - Tourism Project. She submitted that, therefore, this Court may allow the said Authority to hear both sides and then take a final decision on the request of the petitioners, so that, if any further orders are to be issued by the said Authority, it can be done, including the jurisdictional Tahsildar (Land Records).
9. I must say that the afore suggestion of the learned Senior Government is the best available option to the parties at this stage, particularly when there is a dispute as to the actual extents covered by the Eco - Tourism Project. Resultantly, I direct the second respondent to hear
the petitioners, as also the competent official of the fifth respondent, thus leading to a decision on the extents of land covered by Exts.P1 and P2 and the request of the petitioners to remit land tax thereon. On such decision being taken by the District Collector, he shall instruct the Village Officer appropriately; which Authority will, thereupon, accept land tax from the petitioners with respect to the extents shown in their possession and ownership, without any further delay thereafter.
It is needless to say that petitioners will have full liberty to challenge any order to be issued by the District Collector to their detriment, for which purpose, all their contentions are left open. The afore ordered exercise shall be completed by the District Collector as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment and the resultant order
communicated to both sides without any delay, thereafter. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Raj/07.02.2022. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1786/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit1 A TRUE COPY SALE DEED NO. 860/2021/I OF SRO POOYAPPALLY DATED 04/08/2021 Exhibit2 A TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. Exhibit3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 141/2021 DATED 01/09/2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 TO THE PETITIONER NO.1 Exhibit4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 141/2021 DATED 01/09/2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 TO THE PETITIONER NO.2 Exhibit5 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO. ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 Exhibit6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C2- RESPONDENT NO. 3 TO RESPONDENT NO.5 Exhibit7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C2- RESPONDENT 3 TO RESPONDENT NO.5 Exhibit8 A TRUE COPY OF DECISION NO. 3(1) IN THE ORDINARY MEETING OF RESPONDENT NO.5 DATED 13/08/2021