Quashed

Assainar.T.K. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Mar 2009WP(C)/3772/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order by the Taluk Land Board refusing a certificate to alienate property. The Court directed the Board to reconsider the petitioner's claim that his property was wrongly included in pending ceiling proceedings, as the Board failed to examine submitted documents on merit.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order (Exhibit P12) and directed the Taluk Land Board to reconsider the petitioner's application (Exhibit P6) in light of documents produced (Exhibit P4) within eight weeks.

Assainar.T.K. Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 3772 of 2009(Y)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

ASSAINAR.T.K, S/O. UMMER, THORAKKATTIL HOUSE, CHEMMANNUR, KAKANDY.P.O, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS. MR.K.MOHANAKANNAN, SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.

¶15

3. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, MANNARKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, (DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND REFORMS, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD)

¶16

4. THE SUB REGISTRAR, AGALI, PALAKKAD.

¶17

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. M.A. ASIF.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C). NO.3772/2009-Y:

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1979 OF SRO, MANNARKKAD.

¶23

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED LAND TRIBUNAL, AGALI ON 12/03/1982 UNDER THE KLR ACT.

¶24

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DTD. 18/08/2007 ISSUED BY THE KALLAMALA VILLAGE OFFICE.

¶25

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 17/10/06 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3.

¶26

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27/11/2006 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR TO THE SUB REGISTRAR, AGALI.

¶27

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.3. ON 21/08/2007.

¶28

EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMTITED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE R.2. ON 06/09/2007.

¶29

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE LETTER NO. LRA.4.15970 OF 1993 ISSUED BY THE TALUK LAND BOARD, MANNARKKAD ON 06/10/2007.

¶30

EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ON 09/10/2007.

¶31

EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE ACT, 21 OF 2006.

¶32

EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 06/11/2007 IN W.P.(C).NO.32912 OF 2007 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶33

EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ISSUED BY THE R.3. IN C.C. NO. 550 OF 1973 ON 28/01/2009.

¶34

EXT.P.13: COPY OF THE DECISION REPORT IN 2008 (4) KLT 631 (BROTHERS OF SEVEN GABRIEL VS. STATE OF KERALA).

¶35

EXT.P.14: COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2008(4) KLT 163 (PASUPATH NAMBOOTHIRI VS. STATE OF KERALA).

¶36

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

W.P.(C) No. 3772 of 2009

¶42

Dated this the 25^th day of March, 2009

¶43

JUDGMENT

¶44

Petitioner states that by sale deed executed on 5/10/1979, he purchased a property having an extent of 3.10 Acres situated in Pre-survey No.127/Pt of Agaly Village. According to him, he made an application to the Land Tribunal, Agaly and was issued Exhibit P2 Purchase Certificate as early as on 12/03/1982. Petitioner states that since then, as a purchaser of the property, he was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same.

¶45

While so, making reference to the proceedings in CC No.550/1973, in relation to one Fr. K.K.Varghese, the Taluk Land Board, Mannarkad issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to produce his documents of title. Petitioner states that in response to the said notice, along with Exhibit P4, he produced his title deeds and other documents and also documents evidencing his possession of the property. Petitioner submits that while so, he entered into an agreement for sale of the property and wanted to execute the sale deed.

¶46

At that stage, he received Exhibit P5, a communication

¶47

W.P.(C) No. 3772/2009

¶48

¶49

issued by the District Registrar, making reference of an order issued by the District Collector, exercising his power under Section 120A of the Land Reforms Act prohibiting alienation of property in Survey No.127/Pt. Thereupon, the petitioner filed Exhibit P6 before the Taluk Land Board contending that his property is not an item, which is the subject matter of the proceedings in C.C No.550/1973 and that it was wrongly included. On that basis, he sought a certificate from the Taluk Land Board to the effect that his property is not covered by the prohibition as ordered by the District Collector. He also moved District Collector by Exhibit P7, also claiming the benefit of section 7E of the Land Reforms Act. The District Collector issued Exhibit P8 reply, informing that the petitioner’s request in Exhibit P7 can be considered only on the termination of the proceedings in CC No.550/1973 before the Taluk Board, Mannarkkad.

¶50

At that stage, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court as WP(C) No.32912/2007. The case was disposed of by Exhibit P11 judgment directing the Taluk Land Board, Mannarkkad to dispose of Exhibit P6 application filed by the

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 3772/2009

¶52

¶53

petitioner. Considering the application so made, the Taluk Land Board issued Exhibit P12 order and it is challenging Exhibit P12 this writ petition was filed.

¶54

A reading of Exhibit P12 shows that, Secretary, State Land Board had issued a communication dated 18/08/2006 requiring the District Collector to issue an order under Section 120A of the Land Reforms Act prohibiting transfer of the property involved in the above ceiling case. It is stated that the District Collector thereupon had issued an order under Section 120 A of the Act and therefore, the Taluk Land Board was not in a position to certify that the petitioner is free to alienate the land in his possession.

¶55

Counsel for the petitioner complains that in response to the notice requiring the petitioner to produce documents of title, along with Exhibit P4, he produced his title deeds and other documents evidencing his possession over 3.10 Acres of land in Pre-Survey No.127/Pt. of Agaly Village. It is stated that if these documents are perused, it will be evident that the land was wrongly included in the proceedings and therefore the Taluk Land Board should have examined his claims on merit. It is

¶56

W.P.(C) No. 3772/2009

¶57

¶58

argued that if such an exercise was undertaken by the Taluk Land Board, it would have been satisfied that the petitioner’s property was outside the order, issued by the District Collector. Yet another contention raised by counsel for the petitioner is that his claim for benefit of Section 7E of the Land Reforms Act is not even examined by the Taluk land Board.

¶59

In so far as the claim of the petitioner for the benefit of Section 7E of the Act is concerned, on instruction the learned Government Pleader points out that no application has been received from the petitioner in this behalf.

¶60

In so far as the stand taken by the Taluk Land Board in Exhibit P12 is concerned, the learned Government Pleader also submits that in view of the pendency of the proceedings in CC No.550/1973 and the order passed by the District Collector exercising his powers under Section 120A of the Land Reforms Act, Exhibit P2 is valid.

¶61

A reading of Exhibit P12 shows that the Taluk Land Board has issued said order entirely in compliance with the order passed by the District Collector exercising his power under Section 120A of the Act, which again was in compliance with the

¶62

W.P.(C) No. 3772/2009

¶63

¶64

communication of the Secretary, State Land Board. However, the claim of the petitioner is that the land acquired by him vide sale deed executed on 5/10/1979, in respect of which Exhibit P2 purchase certificate was issued, has been wrongly included in the proceedings pending before the Taluk Land Board and it is on that basis, that the petitioner contends that the Taluk Land Board should have held that the petitioner is free to deal with the property. Exhibit P12 order discloses that there has not been a consideration of the claim of the petitioner that the property has been wrongly included in the proceedings. Not even a reference is made to the documents produced by the petitioner under the cover of Exhibit P4. Therefore, rejection of the petitioner’s request only for the reason that the District Authority had issued an order under Section 120A of the Land Reforms Act cannot be sustained. In my view, the Taluk Land Board ought to have dealt with the claim of the petitioner on merits and passed orders thereon.

¶65

Petitioner is claiming the benefit of Section 7E of the Act, however application made in that behalf before the Taluk Land Board has not been produced in this writ petition. If that be

¶66

W.P.(C) No. 3772/2009

¶67

¶68

so, the statement of the learned Government pleader that no application has been received from the petitioner deserves to be accepted. Therefore, the only order that can be passed is that it will be open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the Taluk Land Board, in which event, it is up to the Taluk Land Board to consider the same.

¶69

Be that as it may, for the reasons stated above, I quash Exhibit P12 and direct the Taluk Board to reconsider Exhibit P6 in the light of the documents produced by the petitioner in Exhibit P4. Orders as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within eight weeks of production of copy of this judgment.

¶70

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶71

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE

¶72

scm

Assainar.T.K. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Assainar.T.K. v. State of Kerala

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

K.a.Jelton Vs the Superintending Engineer

Neena.P. Vs the Registrar

Thalikkal Mammukunju Umaiba Vs the Passport Officer, Kochi and Another

C. Beena Vs University of Calicut

Usha Anilkumar & Another Vs the District Collector & Others

Liju Jose Vs Kerala Financial Corporation