The High Court of Kerala dismissed a Writ Appeal filed by purchasers seeking land assignment. The Court found factual defects in proof of possession and ownership, finding no reason to interfere with the learned Judge's conclusion at the admission stage.
The writ appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932
WA.No. 1030 of 2010
-----------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.24203/2003 Dated 21/11/2008 ....................
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS 2 TO 4:
BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J.Chelameswar, C.J. & P.N.Ravindran, J.
W.A.No.1030 of 2010
Dated this the 27th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
J.Chelameswar, C.J.
Aggrieved by a judgment dated 21st November, 2008 in W.P.(C) No.24203 of 2003, three of the eight writ petitioners therein
preferred the instant writ appeal. The writ petition itself was filed with the prayers as follows:
“i) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the same;
ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st and 3rd respondents to issue Pattayam to the petitioners pursuant to Exhibits P4 to P11 on the basis of Exhibit P13 and the report accompanying th same; calling for Exhibit P13 and accompanying report;
iii) issue any other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
W.A.No.1030 of 2010
second respondent herein to the effect that the application filed by the eight writ petitioners for grant of patta in respect of the properties mentioned in the application cannot be accepted for the various reasons given in Ext.P14.
W.A.No.1030 of 2010
Sri.Hassankutty is concerned, it is stated in the writ petition
that Hassankutty purchased the said property from one Karuppuswamy who is alleged to have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land eversince 1940.
W.A.No.1030 of 2010
Sy.No.34/1, 229/230 of Chinnakkanal Village in
Udumbanchola Taluk.
W.A.No.1030 of 2010
Hassankutty was the owner in possession of the property covered by Ext.P2 decree referred to earlier. It was further averred that inspite of the above referred decree, the judgment debtors therein are interfering with the possession of the writ petitioner/decree holder (Hassankutty) and therefore sought that the police be directed to protect the possession of Hassankutty. Consistent with the decree the alleged judgment debtors also did not choose to appear before this Court and contest the writ petition. On the other hand, an assertion was made by the respondent police officials that there was no law and order situation on the land which warrants a direction such as the one sought in the said writ petition. In the abovementioned circumstances, the writ petition came to be disposed of by judgment dated 4th September, 2000. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:
“In such circumstances, I am of the view that Original Petition itself can be disposed of directing R1 and R2 to afford adequate effective police protection to
W.A.No.1030 of 2010
the petitioner for the enjoyment of the property covered by Ext.P2 judgment against any interference at the hands of R3 and R4 and their henchmen. However it is clarified that this direction will stand vacated in case there is any order of stay or modification of Ext.P2 judgment by the Appellate Court.”
Kerala was a party to the said writ petition, nor was there any decision regarding either the title or possession of Hassankutty, vis-a-vis the State of Kerala or for that matter no decision in the
said judgment regarding the title of Hassankutty vis-a-vis the judgment debtors in O.S.No.29 of 2000 who are made parties to the said writ petition.
W.A.No.1030 of 2010
appellants or their alleged 'predecessor in interest' had been in possession of the property from 1969 onwards. As we have already indicated above, the very identity of the property is doubtful.
the learned Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition. Though slightly different reasons are assigned by the learned Judge we are in total concurrence with the conclusion reached by the learned Judge. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not see any reason warranting interference with the conclusion reached by the learned Judge. In the circumstances, the writ appeal is dismissed at the admission stage.
J.Chelameswar, Chief Justice
P.N.Ravindran, Judge
vns
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition appealing the dismissal of an application for land assignment should be allowed or dismissed.
Mujeeb
Najiymole
Shaji
District Collector, Idukki District
Deputy Director, Survey and Land Records
Tahsildar, Udumbanchola Taluk
J.Chelameswar
P.N.Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
