Disposed

Kudukkil Chembat Komu Moideen v. the District Collector

Kerala HC1 Nov 2018WP(C)/35693/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the District Collector to dispose of petitioners' applications for land re-conveyance within four months, upholding earlier Taluk Land Board orders and court judgments that validated land transfers despite ceiling case objections.

What did the court decide?

Directing the District Collector to dispose of the petitioners' applications for re-conveyance of the property within four months.

Kudukkil Chembat Komu Moideen Vs the District Collector — 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 01ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 35693 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 KUDUKKIL CHEMBAT KOMU MOIDEEN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O MOHAMAD, KUDUKKIL CHEMBAT HOUSE,

¶8

P.O.PULIKKAL,

¶9

MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 673 637.

¶10

2 KUDUKKIL CHEMBAT KADIYUMMA, D/O.MOHAMAD, AGED 70 YEARS, KUDUKKIL CHEMBAT HOUSE,P.O.PULIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673637.

¶11

3 KUDUKKIL CHEMBAT BEEPATHUMMA, D/O.MOHAMAD, AGED 58 YEARS, KUDUKKIL CHEMBAT HOUSE, P.O.PULIKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673637.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶15

2 TAHSILDAR

¶16

ERNAD TALUK, MANJERI.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676121.

¶17

3 VILLAGE OFFICER, PULIKKAL VILLAGE, PULIKKAL.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673637.

¶18

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

W.P.(C)No.35693/2018

¶21

..2..

¶22

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. -----------------------W.P.(C)No.35693 of 2018

¶23

Dated this the 01^st day of November, 2018

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

According to the petitioners, they are the legal heirs of late Kudukkil Chembat Mohamad Pulikkal. The first petitioner claims to be in possession and enjoyment of 0.8925 acres of property and 3.75 Acres of property in Re.Sy.No.94/2A of Pulikkal Village. The second petitioner is in ownership and possession of 1.1550 Acres of land in Re.Sy.No.5 and the third

¶26

petitioner is in ownership and possession of 0.8325 acres of property in Re.Sy.No.5 of Pulikkal Village. The above said properties were obtained by the petitioners as per registered gift deed No.2666/1972 executed by their late father in the year 1972.

¶27

W.P.(C)No.35693/2018

¶28

..3..

¶29

2. It is pointed out that the Taluk Land Board (TLB) concerned had initiated a ceiling case as L.R.No.903 of 1973 against the father of the petitioners for determination of excess land. In the said ceiling proceedings, the assessee (father of the petitioner) had claimed that land gifted as per the above said gift deed has to be excluded but the said prayer was rejected by the Taluk Land Board as per Ext.P1 order dated

¶30

26.6.1976 whereby direction was issued to

¶31

surrender 5.20 Acres as excess land. The petitioners would state that, since the entire 5.20 Acres of property was formed part of a large

¶32

quarry; the said land was unfit for assignment.

¶33

3. The land surrendered and taken possession

¶34

was not covered by the gift deed, but the land surrendered was land other than the one covered by the above said gift deed. Later, much after

¶35

W.P.(C)No.35693/2018

¶36

..4..

¶37

the issuance of Ext.P1 order dated 26.6.1976, as per Act 27 of 1979, Section 84(1A) was inserted to the Kerala Land Reforms Act as per which the gift executed by the assessee during the period from 01.01.1970 to 05.11.1974 in favour of major and unmarried children and children of prediseased children were ordered to be treated as valid. However the assessee had not filed formal application before the Taluk Land Board claiming the benefit of the amended provision in Section 84(1A). Later application under Section 84(1A) of the Act for getting the land re-conveyed in favour of the petitioners and other successors of the donee and to delete the said property from the assets of the Revenue Department, was filed before the Taluk Land Board concerned.

¶38

4. This Court as per judgment dated 03.04.2009 in W.P.(C)No.11073 of 2009 had

¶39

W.P.(C)No.35693/2018

¶40

..5..

¶41

directed the Taluk Land Board to consider the afore-said application submitted by the petitioners and others within two months. Pursuant thereto, the Taluk Land Board had found that the transfer of the land to the assessee's children which were covered by the afore-said gift deed was saved by Section 84(1A) of the Act and the land covered by the gift deed is to be deleted from the assessee's account of the Revenue and this was so ordered by the Taluk Land Board as per Ext.P2 order dated 09.03.2010 which also ordered for re-conveyance of the property.

¶42

5. After the issuance of Ext.P2 order dated 09.03.2010 by the Taluk Land Board, the petitioners have filed Ext.P3 application dated 05.12.2010 before the first respondent District Collector requesting for re-conveyance of the land already taken over by the Government. Since

¶43

..6..

¶44

W.P.(C)No.35693/2018

¶45

no effective action was forthcoming on Ext.P3, the petitioners had approached this Court whereby this Court as per Ext.P4 judgment dated 29.3.2011 in W.P.(C)No.9925 of 2011 had directed the first respondent/District Collector to pass orders on the above said Ext.P3 application within two months. That the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment was not complied with by the first respondent so far by passing necessary orders on Ext.P3 application, as ordered by the Taluk Land Board in Ext.P3. That in the meanwhile, Ext.P2 order dated 09.03.2010 of the Taluk Land Board was challenged by the State by filing Civil Revision Petition, C.R.P.No.140 of 2011 before this Court. This Court as per Ext.P4(a) judgment dated 07.07.2014 had dismissed the said C.R.P. with the clear findings, that no

¶46

W.P.(C)No.35693/2018

¶47

..7..

¶48

time limit has been prescribed in Section 84(1A) and that the only condition stipulated therein is that the benefit will not be available for lands taken over and assigned on registry. But in the instant case the land has not been taken over. Even after the dismissal of the C.R.P. filed by the State as per Ext.P4(a) judgment dated 07.07.2014, the first respondent/District Collector had not taken any effective action on

¶49

the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 application dated 05.12.2010, to comply with the directions in Ext.P2 order dated 09.03.2010 of

¶50

the Taluk Land Board which ordered for reconveyance of the property. Thereafter the petitioner had filed Ext.P5 application dated 10.9.2014 before the first respondent/District Collector requesting for compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P4

¶51

..8..

¶52

W.P.(C)No.35693/2018

¶53

judgment so as to take a decision on Ext.P3 application in furtherance of Ext.P2 order of the Taluk Land Board. The complaint voiced by the petitioner is that in spite of the dismissal of the above said C.R.P. filed by the State as against Ext.P2 order as per Ext.P4(a) judgment rendered as early as on 07.07.2014 and in spite of Ext.P4 judgment rendered by this Court as early as on 29.3.2011, steps have not been taken by the first respondent/District Collector to pass orders on Ext.P3 application for reconveyance of the property ordered by Ext.P2 order. It is in the light of these factual averments that the petitioners have filed this instant writ petition (civil) with the following prayers:-

¶54

“i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1^st respondent to re-convey

¶55

..9..

¶56

W.P.(C)No.35693/2018

¶57

the property in pursuance to Ext.P2 order of the Taluk Land Board, Ernad, in favour of the petitioners herein as well as other petitioners in Ext.P4 judgment, forthwith;

¶58

ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 representation, forthwith;

¶59

iii. issue any appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the non-compliance of the direction issued by this Hon'ble Court in Ext.P4 judgment by the 1^st respondent is highly erroneous and illegal;

¶60

iv. issue such other writ, order or direction which may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶61

6. Heard Sri.Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶62

W.P.(C)No.35693/2018

¶63

..10..

¶64

7. Taking note of the facts and circumstances in this case, this Court is constrained to observe that the failure on the part of the respondents concerned more particularly the first respondent in complying with the directions in Ext.P4 judgment which had ordered to take a considered decision on Ext.P3 application, is highly improper and wrong. After the rendering of the judgment by this Court as per Ext.P4 on 29.3.2011, the State Authorities had filed C.R.P.No.140 of 2011 so as to impugn Ext.P2 order of the Taluk Land Board. But the said C.R.P. was dismissed by this Court as early as on 07.07.2014 as discernible from Ext.P4(a) judgment. If that be the position there cannot be any justification for the Authorities concerned in unduly prolonging and delaying further action in the matter and without intimating the

¶65

W.P.(C)No.35693/2018

¶66

..11..

¶67

petitioners about any further steps taken thereon. This Court would further desist from making any comments in that regard.

¶68

8. Taking note of the above said aspects, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the first respondent/District Collector will without any further delay take up the request made by the petitioners in Ext.P3 application and Ext.P5 representation and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard, shall pass orders thereon, in the light of Ext.P2 order dated 09.03.2010 issued by the Taluk Land Board and Ext.P4(a) judgment dated 07.07.2014 rendered by this Court. Action in this regard should be duly finalised by the first respondent without any further delay, at any rate, within an outer time limit of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶69

W.P.(C)No.35693/2018

¶70

9. The petitioner may produce a certified

¶71

copy of this judgment before the first respondent for necessary information and further action.

¶72

With these observations and directions this writ petition (civil) will stand finally disposed

¶73

of.

¶74

Sd/-

¶75

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

skj

W.P.(C)No.35693/2018

..13..

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶81

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/06/1976 OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD, ERNAD. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/03/2010 OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD, ERNAD. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 05/12/2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29/03/2011 IN WP(C)NO.9925/2011 OF THIS COURT. EXHIBIT P4 (a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07/07/2014 IN CRP NO.140/2011 OF THIS COURT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10/09/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

Kudukkil Chembat Komu Moideen v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kudukkil Chembat Komu Moideen v. the District Collector

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

Malayora Grama Vikasana Samithi Vs the State of Kerala

Ramachandran Naduvile Veettil Vs State of Kerala

Felix Alexander Vs the District Collector

Kunchan Vs Special Tahsildar

Unnikrishnan Nair Vs Chempu Grama Panchayath

Sri. Subhadra Devi Vs State of Kerala