Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1944 PETITIONER: KRISHNAMOORTHY, AGED 68 YEARS S/O. LATE KANDAMUTHAN, BUILDING NO. 1, WARD NO. 8, ELAPPULLY PANCHAYAT, THAZHE POKKANTHODU,ELAPPULI, PALAKKAD TALUK, 678 622. BY ADV A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM) RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY REVENUE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD 678 001. 3 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PALAKKAD 678 001. 4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, CHITTOOR PUZHA PROJECT, AMBATTUPALAYAM, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD 678 104. 5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAPPULLY NO. I VILLAGE, ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD 678 622. SMT K AMMINIKUTTY SR GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner impugns Ext.P12 on various grounds, primarily that it has been settled by the Tahsildar in blatant violation of the directions in Exts.P10 and P11 judgments.
2. Sri.A.Shafeek - learned counsel for the petitioner, further explained that, as is
evident from Ext.P12, the Tahsildar has settled it solely on the basis of the report of the Head Surveyor, which had not been made available to his client and then proceeded to
make certain entries in the records, but without understanding the true spirit and purport of the directions in Ext.
P10 judgment, which was followed by Ext.P11. He then showed me that these directions were issued on the strength of Ext.P1 judgment and a decree of the competent Civil Court, wherein, declarations have been made that the land involved is not a 'puramboke' one.
3. The Learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, prayed that Ext.P12 be set aside and the Tahsildar be directed to rectify the mistake as pointed out by his client, particularly with respect to the extent of the property, without any further delay.
4. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader - Smt.K.Amminikutty, read Ext.P12 and argued that Tahsildar could have only acted as per the findings of the Head
Surveyor. She submitted that since the Head Surveyor had already found that the properties are to be sub divided in the manner mentioned in his report, the Tahsildar followed it and issued Ext.P12. She concluded her submissions saying that if the petitioner has any objection against Ext.P12, his remedy is to file an appropriate appeal/revision before the Revenue Divisional Officer.
5. As far as the afore submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader are concerned, I must say that this Court cannot find favour with it because Ext.P12 is
purported to have been issued based on the directions in Exts.P10 and P11 judgments. In these judgments, it has been clearly held that Ext.P1 judgment and decree concluded the issue that there is no 'puramboke' land in the area claimed by the petitioner. Therefore, if there is difference in the extents claimed, certainly it is on account of errors in the Survey and not because of anything that can be attributed to the petitioner.
6. That said, I find force in the
submission of Sri.A.Shafeek - learned counsel for the petitioner, that Ext.P12 proceeds on a report of the Head Surveyor which had not been made available to his client. Therefore, even if the petitioner had applied only for allocation of the sub division numbers, as has been asserted by Smt.K.Amminikutty, care ought to have been taken by the Tahsildar to ensure that there was no difference or discrepancy in the extents particularly in view of the declarations in Ext.P1 judgment and decree of the Civil Court.
7. In the afore circumstances, I have no doubt that Ext.P1 cannot find my favour; and since it has been issued not in tune with the directions of this Court, I am sure that petitioner need not be driven to invoke the alternative remedy.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set aside Ext.P12; with a consequential direction to the 4th respondent or to the jurisdictional Tahsildar (Land Records) - whoever among them is competent - to reconsider
the matter strictly in terms of Ext.P1 judgment
and decree as also Exts.P10 and P11 judgments of this Court, after affording a fresh opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and after favoring him with all germane records and inputs, including the report of the Head Surveyor; thus culminating in an appropriate new order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In order to ensure compliance of the afore directions within the time frame fixed, I direct the petitioner to mark appearance before the Tahsildar at 11 A.M on 07.06.2022; on which day, said Authority will either hear him or fix another convenient date for such purpose and complete proceedings as ordered above. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN SAS JUDGE APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7237/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALAKKAD. Exhibit P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE IN O.S. NO. 476/1994 DATED 30.10.2004. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 18.2.2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT AND HIS ENDORSEMENT ON THE BACK OF THE APPLICATION.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 4.6.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 14.8.2014 SENT BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT WITH A COPY TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.3.2015 SENT BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY TO THE SECRETARY ELAPPULLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE EP NO. 303/2016 IN O.S. NO. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY RESPONDENTS 2 AND 5 HEREIN IN EP NO. 303/2016 Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN AS 2ND JUDGMENT DEBTOR. Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN EP NO. 303/2016 IN O.S. NO. 476/1994 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALAKKAD. Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.3.2020 IN W.PC NO. 22804/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.08.2020 IN R.P. NO. 502/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. F2- THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH SHOWING THE ASSIGNMENT OF PROPERTY IN 168/8 AND 168/9 TO THE PETITIONER.