Partly allowed

Antony Issac v. the District Collector, Alleppey

Kerala HC28 Oct 2008WP(C)/17824/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala was petitioned to quash an order dismissing a revision petition for omitting the District Collector as a respondent. The Court held the finding perverse, quashed the dismissal, and directed the Commissioner to conduct a de novo hearing on the subject properties within four months.

What did the court decide?

Order P13 quashed. Commissioner directed to hear the revision petition and take a final decision within four months.

Antony Issac Vs the District Collector, Alleppey — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2008 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 17824 of 2008(V) ---------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

-----------------------

¶8

ANTONY ISSAC, AGED 58 YEARS, MAVUTHARA, KAINADY P.O., KAVALAM VILLAGE, KUTTANAD TALUK, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) SRI.P.K.MATHEW

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

------------------------

¶12

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.

¶13

2. THE TAHSILDAR, (RR) KUTTANAD, MANCOMBU, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.

¶14

3. COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDINGS, MUSEUM JUNCTION, TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

4. TONY ABRAHAM, PUTHENPURAYIL, KAINADY P.O., KUTTANAD, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.

¶16

5. LAL T.MONEY, RAMANILAYAM, KAINADY P.O. ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.

¶17

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.I.V.PRAMOD FOR R1 TO R3 ADV. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU FOR R5 SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) SRI.A.R.EASWAR LAL

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C) NO.17824/2008

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶22

P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 21.1.1989 IN OS. NO.762/82 OF MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALAPPUZHA.

¶23

P2:- COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. 27.8.06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

P3:- COPY OF THE SALE DEED DT. 16.9.91.

¶25

P4:- COPY OF THE DECREE DT. 21.1.89 IN OS. NO.762/82 OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ALAPPUZHA.

¶26

P5:- COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 14.7.06 FILED BY THE SIT PETITIONER BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT DISTRICT COLLECTOR.

¶27

P6:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 7.12.00 IN WPC. NO.32116/06.

¶28

P7:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 6.12.06 FROM THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶29

P7(a):- COPY OF THE ENELOPE IN WHICH EXT.P7 IS SENT.

¶30

P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 28.12.06 OF THE RDO.

¶31

P9:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 4.4.07 IN WPC. NO.34367/06.

¶32

P10:- COPY OF THE PETITION DT. 11.5.07 BY PETITIONER BEFORE IST RESPONDENT.

¶33

P11:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 23.5.07 BY IST RESPONDENT.

¶34

P11(a):- COPY OF THE ENVELOPE IN EXT.P11 IS SENT.

¶35

P1:- COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DT. 9.8.07.

¶36

P13:- COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 4.9.07 BY 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶37

P14:- COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DT. 17.10.07.

¶38

P15:- COPY OF THE CAVEAT NOTICE ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶39

P16:- COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING FILLING OF PADDY FILED.

¶40

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶41

R5(a):- COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS. NO.137/08 FILED BEFORE THE SUB COURT ALAPPUZHA BY THE PETITIONER.

¶42

R5(b):- COPY OF THE DECLARATION UNDER SECTION 57(1) OF THE ACT ON 6.1.07.

¶43

R5(c):- COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYING TAX ON 31.7.07.

/ TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

¶48

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶49

W.P.(C).No.17824 of 2008-V

¶50

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28^th day of October, 2008.

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

Properties covered by Exts.P1 and P4 were sold in revenue auction. Petitioner claims that those properties belong to him. The Revenue's stand is that the properties belong to the fourth respondent, a debtor of public revenue. The fifth respondent purchased them in auction. That issue was considered by the District Collector whose decision went against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged that by filing a revision before the Land Revenue Commissioner. That has been dismissed as per Ext.P13 order by stating that the District Collector is not made a party to the revision. There is no provision in the Revenue Recovery Act or Rules which obliges a revision petitioner under that Act to make the statutory authorities also respondents in

¶53

¶54

statutory revisions. That apart, an officer whose order is appealed against cannot be conceived to be a respondent in the appellate or revisional proceedings. Even if I were to conceive that he should be on the array, he can be only a dumb spectator because, by the settled precedents of administrative law, he can file a counter affidavit or oppose the proceedings before the superior authority only when personal bias, malice or personal mala fides are charged against him and when he is given liberty to place his statements touching such allegations. Hence, the finding in Ext.P13 that the revision is bad since the District Collector is not made a respondent is substantially perverse. There is one more vague statement in Ext.P13. It states that the revision petition has not been filed “in a right way”. One wonders what is meant by that. Right or left, the matter has to be decided one way or the other.

¶55

For the aforesaid reasons, Ext.P13 is quashed and

¶56

¶57

the Commissioner of Land Revenue is directed to take up Ext.P12 revision, call for the files and necessary reports, hear the necessary parties and take a final decision in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All contentions on merits of the claims are left open. The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

¶58

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/291008

Antony Issac v. the District Collector, Alleppey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antony Issac v. the District Collector, Alleppey

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Rajagopala Marar Vs Secretary to Govt, Co.Op.Dept.

Jose Joseph Vs Chief Manager

Radhakrishnan Vs Town Co-Operative Bank, Kodungallur

T.P.Sivaraman Vs the Branch Manager,Pta.Dist.Co-Op.Bank

Antony Issac Vs Dist.Collector,Alappuzha

Suma Jayan Vs Syndicate Bank