Remanded

Meera, v. Land Tribunal

Kerala HC18 Dec 2018WP(C)/36921/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Writ Petition, the petitioner challenged an order by the Land Tribunal correcting survey numbers without prior notice. The Court held this violated natural justice, quashed the order, and remanded the matter for a fresh hearing with both parties present. It also directed suspension of related civil trial.

What did the court decide?

Quashed Ext.P-5 order dated 18.6.2009; remitted matter to Land Tribunal for fresh hearing; stay of civil proceedings O.S.No.442/2013.

Meera, Vs Land Tribunal — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 36921 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

MEERA, AGED 78 YEARS W/O . LATE THILAKAN, ARAYAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALAPPAD P.O, THRISSUR, PIN- 680 567.

¶8

BY ADVS.

¶9

SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON SRI.P.SANJAY

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 LAND TRIBUNAL,KODUNGALLUR, PIN - 680 664.

¶12

2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR), THRISSUR, PIN- 680 001.

¶13

3 SHYLAJA BHASKARAN,AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, D/O. LATE BHOOSHANAN, PUTHENPURAVEETTIL, P.O. NATTIKA, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680566.

¶14

4 LATHA SAHADEVAN,AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D/O. LATE BHOOSHANAN, ERANKIZHAKKUVEETTIL, VALAPPAD BEACH P.O., VALAPPAD, PIN-680567.

¶15

5 SOUDAMINI SUNDARAN,AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O. LATE BHOOSHANAN, MOONNANKUTTU VEETTIL, KAZHIMBRAM P.O., VADANAPPILLY VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, PIN-680568.

¶16

6 ARUNA KUTTAN,AGED ABOUNT 46 YEARS, D/O. LATE BHOOSHANAN, CHILANKA, CHAKKANVEETTIL, THAMPANKADAVU P.O., PIN-680569, VADANAPPILLY.

¶17

¶18

ADDL. R7. VASANTHI SASHIDHARAN, AGED 51 YEARS, AALUPARAMBIL VEETIL, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, NATTIKA P.O., PIN-680566.

¶19

ADDL. R8. THULASI DAS, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, AALUPARAMBIL VEETIL, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, NATTIKA P.O., PIN-680566.

¶20

ADDL. R9. AJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, AALUPARAMBIL VEETIL, NATTIKA VILLAGE, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, NATTIKA P.O., PIN-680566.

¶21

*ADDITIONAL R7 TO R9 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 12/12/2018 IN IA NO.1/2018.

¶22

BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO

¶23

OTHER PRESENT:

¶24

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 AND R2, SRI.C.A.CHACKO FOR R3 TO R9

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶26

18.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶28

W.P.(C).No.36921 of 2018

¶29

Dated this the 18^th day of December, 2018

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

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

¶32

¶33

1. Issue a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5 order. 2. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to issue the proceedings which culminated in Ext.P5 order.

¶34

3. Issue any other direction or order which this Honourable Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. "

¶35

Heard Smt.A.Parvathi Menon, learned counsel

¶36

appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 and Sri.C.A.Chacko, learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 to 9.

¶37

Shorn of all the details in this case it can be seen that the impugned Ext.P-5 proceedings dated 18.6.2009 has been rendered by the Land Tribunal, Kodungallur whereby the survey numbers in Ext.P-4 purchase certificate issued to the predecessorin-interest of the contesting respondents 3 to 9 have been corrected at the instance of the said predecessor-in-interest of the

¶38

W.P.(C).No.36921/2018

¶39

..4..

¶40

contesting respondents, without any prior notice or reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The complaint of the petitioner is that the said impugned action as per Ext.P-5 would inflict adverse consequences on the petitioner in as much as the corrected survey numbers shown in Ext.P-5 pertains to the petitioner's property covered by Ext.P-1 plaint schedule etc. It is further seen that a civil suit filed by the petitioner herein which has now been renumbered as O.S.No.442/2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Chavakkad is now pending wherein father/ predecessor-ininterest of the contesting respondents was originally arrayed as the 1^st defendant and consequent to his death , contesting respondents 3 to 9 has been impleaded as additional defendants 11 to 17 in the said suit. The case of the petitioner is that he came to know about the issuance of Ext.P-5 proceedings dated 8.6.2009 issued by the Land Tribunal, only when copy of the same was produced by some of the contesting respondents when they have submitted the proof affidavit at the time of trial of the abovesaid suit.

¶41

There cannot be any serious dispute that the corrected

¶42

..5..

¶43

W.P.(C).No.36921/2018

¶44

survey number as ordered in Ext.P-5 in favour of the contesting respondents is otherwise in respect of petitioner's property covered by Ext.P-1 plaint schedule. Therefore this Court has no hesitation to hold that before the Land Tribunal should have entertained plea for correction of the survey number in Ext.P-4 purchase certificate on merits, notice and reasonable opportunity of being heard should have been given to a party like the petitioner as otherwise any such order passed behind the back of the petitioner would amount to violation of principles of natural justice and fairness. On that short ground this Court is of the view that the matter is liable to be remitted. Therefore without going through the merits of the main issue pending between the parties in any manner, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P-5 order dated 8.6.2009 will stand set aside and the request for correction of survey number shown in Ext.P-4 purchase certificate will stand remitted to the 1^st respondent Land Tribunal for consideration afresh after due reasonable opportunity of being heard to the contesting respondents 3 to 9 as well as the petitioner.

¶45

..6..

¶46

W.P.(C).No.36921/2018

¶47

Accordingly it is ordered that the Land Tribunal will make available copies of all the materials and reports etc in respect of the said matter to the petitioner without any delay and thereafter the Land Tribunal should grant reasonable time to the petitioner to submit his written objections/statements in the matter and both sides should be permitted to adduce evidence if so required and after due adjudication and after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides, the Land Tribunal may pass orders afresh on the abovesaid request of predecessor-ininterest of the contesting respondents which is now championed by the contesting respondents in the matter of correction of survey number in Ext.P-4 purchase certificate etc. without much delay preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶48

Further it is also ordered in the interest of justice that evidence in respect of the matter in O.S.No.442/2013 on the file of the Sub Court, Chavakkad may not be completed until final orders are passed by the Land Tribunal concerned in the abovesaid

¶49

..7..

¶50

W.P.(C).No.36921/2018

¶51

matter as aforestated. It is further ordered that immediately on taking final decision in the matter, the Land Tribunal concerned will transmit a copy of the order so passed by the Tribunal to the Sub Court, Chavakkad who is dealing with O.S.No.442/2013 for necessary information.

¶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.36921/2018

¶57

..8..

¶58

APPENDIX

¶59

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶60

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.989/2008 DATED 17/07/2008.

¶61

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT IN OS NO.989/2008 DATED 20/10/2008.

¶62

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PROOF AFFIDAVIT DATED 24/10/2018. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM DATED 29/11/77.

¶63

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER DATED 18/06/2009.

Meera, v. Land Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meera, v. Land Tribunal

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

Nazeer M.K. Vs the Thalassery Municipality

Philomina Abraham Alias Sisily Abraham Vs State

Ammini Amma Vs State of Kerala

P.J. Kuriachan Vs Kerala State Housing Board

Vasanthakumari Vs District Collector

Thaikandiputhiyapurayil Fathima Vs the Secretary