Remanded

Ezhuthuveettil Padmakshi v. the District Collector ,Kannur

Kerala HC12 Jul 2018WP(C)/23341/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Land Tribunal's order rejecting the petitioner's application for a purchase certificate without considering her arguments regarding vesting of property through sale and possession. The matter was remitted for afresh consideration with a direction to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 3.4.2018 is set aside; the matter is remitted to the 2nd respondent for afresh consideration after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

Ezhuthuveettil Padmakshi Vs the District Collector ,Kannur — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 23341 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

EZHUTHUVEETTIL PADMAKSHI, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.KANNAN, ERAMAM AMSOM, PEROOR DESOM, MATHAMANGALAM BAZAR P.O., TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR- 670 306.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN

¶9

SRI.T.R.TARIN

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR-670 003.

¶12

2. THE THAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANNUR- 670 002.

¶13

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADANNAPPALLY VILLAGE, KANNUR- 670 003.

¶14

4. THE SECRETARY, LAND BOARD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶15

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 23341 of 2018 (P)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15.06.2016.
EXT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25/10/2017.
EXT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2141/2013 OF SRO, MATHAMANGALAM.
EXT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.709/2016 OF SRO, MATHAMANGALAM.
EXT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER DATED 07/07/2016.
EXT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE FILES PERTAINING TO THE CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONERS APPLICATION WHICH WAS RECEIVED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03/04/2018.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

NIL TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE

¶24

¶25

18.7.2018

¶26

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶27

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

¶28

W.P.(C).No. 23341 of 2018 ================== Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2018 J U D G M E N T

¶29

According to the petitioner, she is in possession and enjoyment of 34.40 ares (about 80 cents) of property in Kadannappally village in Kannur taluk. The petitioner avers that she acquired the above extent of property in the year 2013 from the legal heirs of one late Balikulathil Kumaran, who was the original assignee of the said property. That the said late Balikulathil Kumaran was issued with only a deed of assignment and before obtaining the purchase certificate, the said assignee had died and that the property got vested with the legal heirs of late Balikulathil Kumaran. That thereafter the petitioner has purchased the property from the legal heirs of late Balikulathil Kumaran in the year 2013 and the petitioner had preferred an application before the 2^nd respondent for issuance of purchase certificate and that the said request has been rejected by that respondent as per the impugned Ext.P-7 order dated 3.4.2018 on the ground that the deed of assignment in form No.19 was issued in the name of late Balikulathil Kumaran and that being the case, form No.20 purchase certificate cannot be issued in the name of the petitioner. It is in the light of these factual averments, that the

¶30

W.P.(C)23341/18 - : 2 :-

¶31

petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the following

¶32

prayers:

¶33

“a) Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to Ext.P-7, and quash the original of the same.

¶34

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 2^nd Respondent to issue purchase certificate forthwith.

¶35

c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction, directing the 2^nd Respondent to reconsider Ext.P-5 application within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶36

Heard Sri.T.G.Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for

¶37

the writ petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt.

¶38

Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶39

The impugned rejection order at Ext.P-7 dated 3.4.2018 rendered by the 2^nd respondent Land Tribunal, reads as follows:

¶40

" വ�ഷയ� : ക�രള ഭ�പര�ഷ�രണ ന�യമ� ക��റ� 20 യ�ൽ

¶41

പടയ� അന�വദ�ക�നത - സ�ബന�ച! .

¶42

സ�ചന : ത�ങള%ട' അകപക ത)യത� 07/07/2016.

¶43

�ണ+ർ ത�ല�ക�ൽ �'നപള� അ�ശ� റ� . സ . 84/2 ബ� യ�ൽട0ട 34.40 ആർ ഭ�മ�ക! ജ�ല3� �ളക'റ�ട' ബ� .6-39048/75 ത)യത� 31/12/2015 നമർ ന'പ'� പപ��ര� ബല�കളത�ൽ ��മ�രൻ എന�വർക! ക��റ� 19 പപ��ര� ഡ)ഡ ഓഫ അസസൻടമന@ നൽ��യ�ര�നത�യ�� '� ഭ�മ�ക! ക��റ� 20 നൽ��യ�ട�ല3�തത�ന�ൽ ആയത അന�വദ�ച! തരണടമന�� ണ�ച�ണ ത�ങൾ അകപക സമർ0�ച�ട%ളത .

¶44

എന�ൽ പപസത�ത വ�ഷയ� സ�ബന�ച! റ�ക0�ർട%�ള%� കരഖ�ള%� പര�കശ�ധ�ചത�ൽ ക��റ� നമർ 19 പപ��ര� ഭ�മ� അന�വദ�ച! നൽ�� യ�ട%ളത ബല�ക�ളത�ൽ ��മ�രൻ എനയ�ൾക�ണ . ക��റ� 19 നൽ��യ ആൾക�ണ ക��റ� 20 പടയ� നൽക�ണത . എന�ൽ '� ക�സ�ൽ ക��റ� 19 നൽ��യ ആള�ന ന�ലവ�ൽ വസത� ഇല3�തത�� '�യ�ൾ ജ)വ�ച�ര�0�ല3�തത�� '� വസത� ന�ലവ�ൽ വ�വ�ധ �ക��ള%ട' സ�വശ ത�ല�മ�ണ . ആ�യ�ൽ ത�ങൾ ആവശHട0ട ക��റ� 20 പടയ� ത�ങള%ട' കപര�ൽ നൽ��ൻ ന�ർവ�ഹമ�ല3 എന വ�വര� അറ�യ�ക�ന� .”

¶45

The main contentions urged by Sri.T.G.Rajendran,

¶46

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to challenge the legality

¶47

and correctness of the impugned Ext.P-7 order are as follows:- That

¶48

the original assignee of the land (Balikulathil Kumaran) was only

¶49

W.P.(C)23341/18 - : 3 :-

¶50

given the deed of assignment by the 1^st respondent and the respondents do not have a case that the original assignee was given purchase certificate also pursuant to the deed of assignment, which has been given as per the provisions of the Land Tribunals Act, 1963. That petitioner has obtained the property from the LRs of the original assignee, who got vested with the property after the death of the original assignee and that the LRs of the original assignee was in possession of the property till they parted with the same as per Ext.P-3 and P-4 sale deeds in favour of the petitioner and that the petitioner is paying land tax in respect of the property and that she is in possession of the same from 2013 onwards. That the impugned Ext.P-7 rejection only says that the deed of assignment was given in the name of late Balikulathil Kumaran and as the assignee is no more, purchase certificate cannot be issued in the name of the petitioner. That the said impugned order does not say that the petitioner is not in possession of the property covered by the deed of assignment given in the name of the original assignee and that as the petitioner is in possession of the property covered by the deed of assignment given in the name of the original assignee, the petitioner has every right to get the purchase certificate in her name as the property now stands vested in her name and that the same is

¶51

W.P.(C)23341/18 - : 4 :-

¶52

her possession pursuant to a valid registered document registered before Mathamangalam SRO.

¶53

In these circumstances, it is argued that a duty was cast on the 2^nd respondent to ascertain whether the property got vested with the petitioner from the LRs of the deceased original assignee pursuant to Exts.P3 and P-4 and that whether the petitioner is possession of the property, etc. In this context, the petitioner would place reliance on Ext.P-1 possession certificate issued in respect of the abovesaid property 3^rd respondent village officer and Ext.P-2 land tax receipt issued in respect of the abovesaid property by the said respondent and that thereupon, further duty was cast upon the 2^nd respondent to take necessary steps to demarcate the land and to make necessary steps to change the revenue records and for formal issuance of purchase certificate in form No.20, which was not done by the 2^nd respondent after issuance of the deed of assignment in the year 1976 in favour of the original assignee. It is specifically contended that the as the original assignee had passed away without getting the purchase certificate, his LRs were legally entitled to get the purchase certificate and as the LRs of the original assignee had also parted with the property as per Exts.P-3 and P-4, the 2^nd respondent was legally obliged to issue purchase certificate in the

¶54

W.P.(C)23341/18 - : 5 :-

¶55

name of the petitioner, etc.

¶56

On a perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that none of these vital contentions are even remotely considered and adverted to by the 2^nd respondent before taking a decision to reject the request. In that view of the matter, it is ordered in the interest of justice the impugned order as reflected in Ext.P-7 letter dated 3.4.2018 issued by the 2^nd respondent will stand set aside and the matter will stand remitted to the 2^nd respondent/Land Tribunal concerned for consideration of the matter afresh. The petitioner will also be at liberty to submit any written submission in the matter before the 2^nd respondent and the 2^nd respondent shall afford a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before taking decision in the matter as directed above. The above specific contentions of the petitioner should be adverted to and considered by the 2^nd respondent before a decision is rendered in the matter. Orders in this regard should be passed by the 2^nd respondent without much delay, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶57

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶58

Sd/sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True Copy/// P.S. to Judge

Ezhuthuveettil Padmakshi v. the District Collector ,Kannur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ezhuthuveettil Padmakshi v. the District Collector ,Kannur

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

M.V Francis Oommen Vs State of Kerala

Deepthy Joy Vs the District Collector, Wayanad

Aleyamma Johnson Vs the Land Tribunal

Prabhavathy K Vs the District Registrar

Mr. Tomy Thomas Vs the State of Kerala

Kunjeethu Vs the Land Tribunal Tirur