Disposed

Dr Raghavan v. Asokan

Kerala HC9 Jul 2018WA/1329/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ appeal seeking leave to appeal a judgment where the lower court declared certain respondents as absolute owners. The High Court clarified that its earlier observations regarding those respondents' claims were merely recording statements for the lower court's proceedings and did not constitute a conclusive endorsement of ownership by the High Court, thereby mitigat

What did the court decide?

The judgment re-characterized the single judge's observations on the respondents' title as mere recording of claims rather than an endorsement of ownership by the High Court.

Dr Raghavan Vs Asokan — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶6

MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 18TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶7

WA.No. 1329 of 2018 IN WPC. 27484/2012

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 27484/2012 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 18-11-2015

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/ NO PARTY:

¶10

DR RAGHAVAN, S/O RAMANKUTTY, AGED 76 SOUTH PALACE, NO.11/391, PALACE ROAD, PUTHIYIDAM, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM 682 575.

¶11

PONNAMMA RAGHAVAN, W/O RAGHAVAN, AGED 68, SOUTH PALACE, NO.11/391, PALACE ROAD, PUTHIYIDAM, KANJOOR, ERNAKULAM 682 575.

¶12

BY ADVS.DR.V.N.SANKARJEE

SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN

SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI

SRI.M.M.VINOD

SRI. S. SIDHARDHAN

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS:

¶18

ASOKAN, S/O EDATHADAN RAGHAVAN, AGED 55 EDATHADAN HOUSE, ALOOR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 683.

¶19

MOHANAN, S/O EDATHADAN RAGHAVAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, EDATHADAN HOUSE, ALOOR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 683.

¶20

SALILA ALIAS SALITHA, W/O MOHANAN, AGE NOT KNOWN EDATHADAN HOUSE, ALOOR VILLAGE AND DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT 680 683.

¶21

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA, JANPATH, NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶22

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶23

THE DIRECTOR, ARCHEOLOGICAL DEPARTMENT OF KERALA, SREE PADHAM PALACE, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 023.

¶24

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM 682 030.

¶25

WA.1329/18

¶26

¶27

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KIZHAKKEBHAGAM VILLAGE PUTHEYEZHAM, ALUVA 683 101, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶28

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, NEW DELHI 110 001.

¶29

R4,R 6 BY ADV. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY,SC, ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA R9 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R5, R7, R8 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.TEK CHAND R1 TO R3 BY SRI.T.N.MANOJ

¶30

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

APPENDIX IN WA.1329/18

¶32

APPELLANTS' EXHIBITS:

¶33

ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2225/1990 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶34

ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 27.2.2018 TOGETHER WITH ARREAR DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19.2.2018 IN RESPECT OF BUILDING NO.11/395 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶35

ANNEXURE III: TRUE COPIES OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPTS DATED 20.2.2015 AND 7.8.2018 TOGETHER WITH ARREAR DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19.2.2018 AND DEMAND NOTICE DATED 18.10.2014 IN RESPECT OF BUILDING NO.11/391-C (OLD NO.9/93-C) WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶36

ANNEXURE IV: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 19.2.2018 ISSUED TO THE 1ST APPELLANT BY THE KANJOOR VILLAGE IN RESPECT OF THE BUILDING NO.11/392 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶37

ANNEXURE V: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14.5.2018 OF ELECTRICITY BOARD.

¶38

ANNEXURE VI: TRUE COPY OF THE DRUGS LICENCE NO.ML4-1224/2004/DC DATED 3.2.2004.

¶39

ANNEXURE VII: TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.17788/1994 DATED 19.12.1994 FILED BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶40

ANNEXURE VIII: TRUE COPY OF O.P.NO.2165/1995 DATED 9.2.1995 FILED BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶41

ANNEXURE IX: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 18.2.1995 IN C.M.P.NO.3935/1995 IN O.P.NO.2165/1995 FILED BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶42

ANNEXURE X: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.3.1995 IN O.P.NO.17788/1994 AND OP NO.2165/1995 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶43

ANNEXURE XI:TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DT.11.8.93 BEARING NO.2145/1993 OF THE FILE OF THE S.R.O., SREEMOOLANAGARAM WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶44

ANNEXURE XII: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO.3251/1993 OF THE S.R.O., SREEMOOLANAGARAM WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶45

ANNEXURE XIII: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO.1562/1994 OF THE S.R.O., SREEMOOLANAGARAM WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶46

ANNEXURE XIV: TRUE COPY OF G.O.(RT) NO.19/17/CLAD DATED 19.1.2017.

¶47

ANNEXURE XV: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2.5.2018 OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR, ALUVA WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶48

HRISHIKESH ROY, Ag C.J. & A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶49

W.A.No.1329 of 2018

¶50

-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 9^th day of July, 2018

¶51

JUDGMENT

¶52

A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.

¶53

The grievance of the appellants, who were granted leave to prefer this appeal, is only against the observations in the judgment dated 18.11.2015 in W.P(C).27484/12, which suggest that the writ petitioners in the said case, viz., Sri.Asokan, Sri.Mohanan and Smt.Salitha, are the absolute owners in possession of an extent of 2.57 acres of land comprised in old survey No.176 (Re-survey No.59) by virtue of sale deed Nos.3251 of 1993, 1562 of 1994 and 2145 of 1993 of S.R.O., Sreemoolanagaram. It is the case of the appellants that they too have claims in respect of the said property and, in as much as pursuant to the judgment of this Court, the Government, by order dated 19.1.2017, has notified the Thekke Kovilakam in Re-survey No.59 of Kizhakkumbhagam Village of Aluva Taluk of Ernakulam District, having an extent of 5 Acres 57 Cents as a protected monument of the Archeology Department, as per the Kerala Ancient Monuments and the Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1968, and directed the Director of Archaeological Department to furnish revenue details and survey sketch after exempting the plot in which the new buildings are situated from the revenue authorities, and further called for a report from the District Collector as regards the actual proprietorship of the Kovilakam and its surrounding property with the total land value of the property, unless a clarification as sought for is granted,

¶54

¶55

WA.1329/18

¶56

the appellants would be prejudicially affected by any orders to be passed by the Government.

¶57

When the leave petition (I.A.No.723/18) came up for orders before this Court on 27.6.2018, we passed the following order :

¶58

“This is a petition seeking leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 18.11.2015 in W.P.(C)No.27484 of 2012. The point urged in the petition for leave is that the aforesaid writ petition was preferred by three persons namely Sri.Asokan, Sri.Mohanan and Smt.Salila, claiming to be the absolute owners in possession of an extent of 5.57 Acres of land comprised in old Sy.No.176 (Re-Sy.No.59) by virtue of sale deed No.3251/93, 1562/94 and 2145/93 of SRO, Sreemoolanagaram. The petitioners in the leave petition appeared to dispute the aforesaid claim of the petitioners in the writ petition referred above. They are therefore aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.11.2015 in the aforesaid writ petition which suggests that the petitioners therein are the absolute owners in possession of the property described above. It is therefore that they have preferred this leave petition for leave to appeal against the judgment aforementioned. The writ petitioners in W.P.(C)No.27484 of 2012 have been arrayed as respondents 1 to 3 in the writ appeal which is presently unnumbered.

¶59

We have heard Dr.V.N.Sankarjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the leave petition, Sri.Dinesh R. Shenoy, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent and Sri. Aravinda Kumar Babu, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents of the State. We have also noted the presence of Sri.T.N.Manoj, the learned counsel who appeared for respondents 1 to 3 in the writ petition.

¶60

Taking note of the limited prayer of the petitioners in the leave petition and finding that a simple clarification of the judgment of the Single Judge aforesaid would suffice to mitigate the grievance of the writ petitioners, we allow the application by granting leave to the petitioners to prefer an appeal against the judgment dated 18.11.2015 in W.P. (C)No.27484 of 2012. We also note from Annexure-XIV order produced along with the writ appeal that the State

¶61

¶62

WA.1329/18

¶63

Government has taken further steps pursuant to the judgment of the Single Judge referred above and the District Collector, Ernakulam has been asked to furnish a specific report regarding the actual proprietorship of the Kovilakom and its surrounding property with the total land value of the property to the Government.

¶64

Registry shall number the writ appeal and post the writ appeal for admission on 9.7.2018.”

¶65

Today, after hearing the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, as also Sri.T.N.Manoj, the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent as also the Government Pleader for the official respondents of the State, we dispose of the writ appeal by clarifying that the observations of the learned single judge in the judgment in W.P(C).27484/12 dated 18.11.2015 with regard to the interests of the writ petitioners therein, viz., Sri.Asokan, Sri.Mohanan and Smt.Salitha, over the property mentioned in the said judgment shall be treated as merely recording the claim of the said persons (writ petitioners) in respect of the said property and shall not be seen as an endorsement by this court of their claims over the property in question. The proceedings, pursuant to the notice dated 2.5.2018 of the Taluk Surveyor, Aluva (produced as Annexure AXV along with the writ appeal) shall be on the said basis.

¶66

kkb.

¶67

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

Dr Raghavan v. Asokan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Raghavan v. Asokan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamsudeen Para Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Atc Telecom Vs Kerala State Warehousing

Santhosh Vs Cherpulassery Municipality

Anlet Jou U.A Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Ligi George Vs Authorized Officer, Uco Bank

T.Kumar Vs State of Kerala