Disposed

E.G. Granites v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC26 Nov 2018WP(C)/27781/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a land tax appeal delay was allowed. The Court directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal without delay after affording a hearing. Enforcement of the original order was stayed pending the appellate outcome, and the appellant must receive reports used in the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appellate authority must grant reasonable hearing and pass a final order on the appeal without delay. Enforcement of the original order is prohibited until the appellate decision is communicated.

E.G. Granites Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 27781 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

M/S.E.G. GRANITES

¶8

MALAMEL, PERUMANNOOR P.O, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, ELDHO KURIAN.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.VINEETH KURIAKOSE

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOLLAM 691001.

¶13

2 THE TAHSILDAR(LR) TALUK OFFICE,PUNALUR, KOLLAM 691305.

¶14

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ARACKAL VILLAGE, KOLLAM 689695.

¶15

SRI.JESTIN MATHEW, GOVT.PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

¶17

26.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶19

W.P.(C)No.27781 of 2018

¶20

Dated this the 26^th day of November, 2018

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows.

¶23

¶24

i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or such other writ or order or direction quashing Ext.P5, P7 and P1.

¶25

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other writ or order or direction directing the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P2 Appeal de novo by affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and within the time frame stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.

¶26

iii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other writ or order or direction directing the respondents not to take any coercive steps to recover the amount covered by Ext.P1 and P5; and

¶27

iv. To grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case. "

¶28

Heard Sri.Philip J.Vettickattu, learned counsel

¶29

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Jestin Mathew, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶30

Aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P-1 order dated 17.7.2017 issued by the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar, under Section 6(3) of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 the petitioner has preferred Ext.P-2 appeal before the 1^st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollam along with Ext.P-3 stay application. By

¶31

..3..

¶32

W.P.(C).No.27781/2018

¶33

Ext.P-4 judgment dated 31.8.2017 rendered by this Court in WP(C).No. 29259/2017 filed by the petitioner herein, it was directed that the 1^st respondent appellate authority shall dispose of Ext.P-2 appeal and Ext.P-3 stay application expeditiously and status quo shall be maintained until such order is passed which order will determine the proceedings thereafter. It is submitted by Sri.Philip J.Vettickattu learned counsel for the petitioner that till date no orders rejecting Ext.P-2 appeal has been communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner is not apprised about the exact details inspite of his efforts by sending applications under the RTI proceedings. Ext.P-4 judgment rendered by this Court in WP(C).No.29259/2017 reads as follows.

¶34

“The petitioner filed Ext.P2 appeal with Ext.P3 stay petition, before the 1^st respondent; which are pending consideration. Ext.P1 order is challenged in Ext.P2 appeal. The petitioner's grievance is that before consideration of the appeal and stay petition, coercive proceedings have been initiated.

¶35

2. In the above circumstances, it is directed that the 1^st respondent herein, consider and dispose of Ext.P3 stay petition or Ext.P2 appeal expeditiously and 'status quo' shall be maintained until such an order is passed, which order shall determine the proceedings thereafter.

¶36

The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.”

¶37

During the pendency of the abovesaid appellate

¶38

process, the 2^nd respondent who is the original authority who

¶39

issued the impugned Ext.P-1 order has again issued Ext.P-5 notice

¶40

..4..

¶41

W.P.(C).No.27781/2018

¶42

dated 13.4.2018 directing the petitioner to pay the amounts in question covered by Ext.P-1 order. The petitioner endevour to know the outcome of the some of the proceedings referred to in the impugned Ext.P-5 notice by submitted applications under the Right to Information Act pursuant to Exts.P-6 proceeding & P-7 letter have been issued to him. Ext.P-7 makes interesting reading and the same reads as follows.

¶43

"തങ്ങൾ ഈ കകാരരകാലയതത്തിൽ നൽകത്തിയ അപപേക്ഷയത്തിപന്മേൽ സൂചന (൧) പ്രകകാരര റത്തിപപകാർടട്ട് ലഭരമകായതത്തിൽ തകാങ്കളുടടെ വത്തിഷയര സരബനത്തിചട്ട് പുനലൂർ തകാലൂകട്ട് ഓഫഫീസത്തിൽ പേരകാതത്തി നൽകുന്നതര ആയതത്തിൽ എനര തഫീർപകാകത്തിയത്തിടത്തില്ല കകാണുന. ആയതത്തിനകാൽ തകാങ്കൾ നൽകത്തിയ അപപേക്ഷ എൽ.സത്തി അപഫീൽ അപപേക്ഷയകായത്തി പേരത്തിഗണത്തിക്കുവകാൻ സകാധത്തിക് ക ു യത്തില്ല എന്ന വത്തിവരര തകാങ്കടളെ അറത്തിയത്തിക്കുന.”

¶44

A reading of Ext.P-7 would indicate that what has been

¶45

attempted to be conveyed by the officer the 1^st respondent RDO/Sub Collector is that the original proceedings have not so far been finalised by the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar and that original proceedings are still pending against the petitioner and therefore there is no question of entertaining or maintaining an appeal as against an original petition which has not so far been finalised.

¶46

..5..

¶47

W.P.(C).No.27781/2018

¶48

This appears to be the purport and content of Ext.P-7. If what is stated in Ext.P-7 is factually true then, Ext.P-1 order cannot be said to be final order passed by the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar and therefore equally the logic would be Ext.P-5 notice for enforcement of Ext.P-1 is also not maintainable. What has been sought to be conveyed in Ext.P-7 is quite difficult for this Court to understand. Whatever be the nature and substance of Ext.P-1, this Court has directed in Ext.P-4 judgment that Ext.P-2 appeal directed against Ext.P-1 should be considered and decided by the 1^st respondent who is the appellate authority under the Land Conservancy Act. Ext.P-4 judgment has not so far been modified or altered in the manner known to law. So also none of the respondents more particularly the 1^st respondent has sought for obtaining clarification from this Court with regard to Ext.P-4 judgment that Ext.P-2 appeal mentioned therein need not be entertained or considered. 6. Accordingly it is ordered that it is for the 1^st respondent appellate authority to grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and then pass final order on Ext.P-2 appeal without any further delay. Issuance of Ext.P-5 notice for enforcement of Ext.P-1 order when the same is subjected to

¶49

W.P.(C).No.27781/2018

¶50

..6..

¶51

appellate process is also not proper and right . Accordingly it is ordered that the 2^nd respondent shall not enforce Ext.P-6 until and unless he is communicated with copy of the appellate order to be rendered by the 1^st respondent appellate authority on Ext.P-2 appeal and further action thereon that has to be taken by the 2^nd respondent will be subject to the outcome of the said appellate process. If the respondent appellate authority is placing reliance on any report in the matter for determining the issues in the appeal, then the 1^st respondent should ensure that a copy of the report should be given in advance to the petitioner in order to enable and equip the petitioner to make necessary submissions and contentions on those aspects of the matter.

¶52

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

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶55

MMG

¶56

W.P.(C).No.27781/2018

¶57

..7..

¶58

APPENDIX

¶59

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶60

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF OR PASSED BY THE 2ND	DER DATED 17.7.2017 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF APP BY THE PETITION RESPONDENT.	EAL MEMORANDUM FILED ER BEFORE THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF STAY WITH EXT.P2 APPEAL	PETITION FILED ALONG .
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF JUDG PASSED BY THE WPC.NO.29259/2017	MENT DATED 31.8.2017 HON'BLE COURT IN
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF NOT ISSUED BY THE 2ND	ICE DATED 13.4.2018 RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF PRO RESPONDENT DATED UNDER THE PROVISI INFORMATION ACT.	CEEDINGS OF THE 1ST 5.3.2018 OBTAINED ONS OF THE RIGHT TO
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF LETT BEARING NO.K.DIS	TER DATED 14.11.2017 D-21338/17 OBTAINED
	UNDER THE PROVISI INFORMATION ACT.	ONS OF THE RIGHT TO

E.G. Granites v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E.G. Granites v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoli Nafeesa, Vs the Deputy Chief Engineer

A.C.Koyakidavu Vs Settlement Officer

Ramakkalmedu Green Energy (P) Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

Vijosh Vs the State of Kerala

Ramesh Kumaran N Vs the Secretary,Thenhipalam Grama Panchayat

K.Ratnakaran Vs State of Kerala