This court dismissed a review petition filed by the State and revenue officials regarding a land assignment order granted to a school. The court rejected the petition for suppression of facts, lack of bonafides, and absence of error apparent on the face of the record under CPC provisions.
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 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/24TH KARTHIKA, 1938
RP.No. 961 of 2016 -------------------
WP(C) 34308/2014 DATED 29-06-2015 ----------------
REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 IN WPC:
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE (U) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
5. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTTATHARA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
BY SPL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI JAFAR KHAN.Y
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WPC:
ST.ANTONY'S HIGH SCHOOL, VALIYATHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER REV. FRO.MELKON, PIN-695008.
BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
K.V.
RP NO 961 OF 2016:
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS ANNEXURES:
RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:
R1(A) COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO 594/2015/RD DATED 11.11.2015.
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO JUDGE
K.V.
P.V.ASHA, J.
C.M.Appl.No.485 of 2016 and R.P.No.961 of 2016 in
W.P(C) No.34308 of 2014
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2016
O R D E R
This review petition is filed along with an application for condonation of delay of 460 days. In the affidavit dated 31.10.2016 in support of this C.M.A. No.485/2016, the reasons stated for the delay are : “Though the judgment is dated 29.6.2015, the copy of the same was produced before the Government on 22.07.2015. However there was some delay in obtaining the certified copy due to the fact that the opinion on this issue has to be obtained first. Ultimately, the opinion of the Law Department was sought for and also that of Advocate General. Finally it was decided to file a Review Petition having regard to the nature of proceedings and also the way in which the writ petitioner approached this Court and obtained an order.”
There is no other explanation or averment in the affidavit regarding the delay of 460 days, even though the Government had already issued order dated 11.11.2015 in purported
R.P.No.961 of 2016 in W.P(C) No.34308 of 2014 2
compliance of the judgment.
R.P.No.961 of 2016 in W.P(C) No.34308 of 2014 3
Assignement Act, 1964; Rule 21 of Land Assignment Rules, 1995 is not considered; Ext.P1 order has no application where there is outstanding arrears of lease rent etc and contention in the Review Petition is that assignment of any land to the writ petitioner would be in contravention of Section 3(2) of the Land Assignment Act, 1964 as well as Rule 6 of Assignment of Land within Municipal and Corporation Areas Rules, 1995.
“As the impugned orders Exts.P8 and P9 do not refer to the applicability of Ext.P1 and the Government has already direcrted assignment of land in favour of the educational authorities in accordance with the conditions stipulated in Ext.P1, and the distance from airport stated in Ext.P8 is contrary to the finding in Ext.P4, the impugned orders Exts.P8 and P9 shall stand set aside. The Government will pass fresh orders, on the application of the petitioner School for assignment, in terms of Ext.P1 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.”
Petitioner has produced Annexure A2 dated 16.11.2015 saying that the land is required for Navy. Annex.A3 minutes dated 16.5.2015 is produced to show the requirement of land for the Indian Navy. Annexs.A4 and A5 are letters of 2016 relating to events subsequent to the judgment. Annex.A6 is of 2011, which shows that the Secretary of Trivandrum Corporation required acquisition of 9 ares of land in sy.no 2857 of Muttathara village
R.P.No.961 of 2016 in W.P(C) No.34308 of 2014 4
among other properties, for the purpose of commissioning of pumbing station. Except Annexs.A1 and A6, all the documents relate either to events subsequent to the judgment or not relating to the land in question. There is nothing in any of these documents including Annexs.A1 or A6 documents which necessitates a review of the judgment. Nothing was stated in the counter affidavit even regarding the requirement of the 9 ares of land shown in Annex.A6. The petitioners do not state the reason for not producing or at least mentioning anything about that document in the counter affidavit.
R.P.No.961 of 2016 in W.P(C) No.34308 of 2014 5
In the above circumstances, the C.M.Appl.No.485 of 2016
and review petition are dismissed.
(P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)
rtr/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition filed after a delay of 460 days with no sufficient bonafides and suppressing material facts should be entertained.
Whether any error apparent on the face of the record exists in the judgment under review to justify granting a review.
Whether the explanation provided for the delay condones the lateness of filing the review petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Code of Civil ProcedureReferred¶49
Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure
Review Petitioner(s)/Respondents 1 to 6 in WPC
St.Antony's High School, Valiyathura, Thiruvananthapuram
P.V.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
