Allowed

C.a.Muhammed Kunju, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jan 2019WP(C)/592/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment in a writ petition directed the 5th respondent, Village Officer, to issue a possession certificate and location sketch to the petitioner. The court set aside the Officer's refusal, holding it illegal since a prior order restraining revenue proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act had been set aside in a connected case.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 5th respondent Village Officer to grant location sketch and possession certificate within three weeks.

C.a.Muhammed Kunju, Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 09TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 19TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 592 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

C.A.MUHAMMED KUNJU, AGED 65 YEARS S/O ABDUL KHADER, CHANKOOR PUTHUVELIL HOUSE, UPPUTHARA P.O.685 505,IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,REVENUE DEPARTMENT,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2 THE STATE SPECIAL OFFICER AND COLLECTOR, GOVERNMENT LAND RESUMPTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT,COLLECTORATE,IDUKKI 685531.

¶13

4 THE TAHSILDAR, PEERMADE TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 584.

¶14

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, UPPUTHARA VILLAGE,PEERMADE TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 505.

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SMT.A.C.VIDHYA,GOVT.PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C)No.592/2019

¶19

¶20

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶21

W.P.(C)No.592 of 2019

¶22

Dated this the 9^th day of January, 2019

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

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

¶25

“To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 5^th respondent to issue possession certificate and location sketch to the petitioner in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 to P4 within such time as this Honourable court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice;”

¶26

Heard Sri. Biju C.Abraham, the learned counsel

¶27

appearing for the petitioner and Smt. A.C. Vidhya, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶28

The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 8.09 Ares of land in old Survey No.338 of Upputhura Village, Peermade Taluk, Idukki Revenue District covered by Ext.P1 registered sale deed No.1812/2016 dated 12.7.2016 of SRO Peermade. The property has been mutated in the name of the petitioner and he has been paying basic land tax for the same as evidence by Ext.P2 tax receipt. Earlier, Ext.P3 location sketch and Ext.P4 possession certificate

¶29

W.P.(C)No.592/2019

¶30

¶31

were also issued to the petitioner by the 5^th respondent Village Officer, Upputhara Village. However, now the 5^th respondent Village Officer, as per Ext.P8 dated 1.1.2019 has refused to issue fresh location sketch and possession certificate of the above said property as requested in Ext.P7 application on the ground that as per Ext.P9 proceedings dated 12.8.2016, of the Special Officer and Collector, it has been ordered that the revenue certificates in respect of the properties in Survey No.338 of Upputhara Village cannot be issued. It is seen that the impugned proceedings dated 12.8.2016 rendered by the Special Officercum-Collector as per Ext.P9 herein has already been set aside by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment dated 7.11.2018 rendered in W.P.(C)No.40002/2016 and connected cases. It is stated that the petitioner is also similarly placed as the petitioners in Ext.P10 judgment and therefore, the 5^th respondent is liable to be directed to issue fresh location sketch and possession certificate to the petitioner in respect of his property covered by Exts.P1 to P4. From a reading of Ext.P10 judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.(C)No.40002/2016 and connected cases, it can be seen that this Court in categorical terms has declared that from the impugned proceedings initiated under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and the Rules framed thereunder is

¶32

W.P.(C)No.592/2019

¶33

¶34

without jurisdiction in as much as the parties concerned have valid title and that they have substantial disputes based on their title and that in such situation, the respondent Governmental authorities concerned cannot short circuit the ordinary course of law to deprive the proprietary right of such persons by initiating proceedings under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and the Rules framed thereunder and that the remedy of the respondent State authorities concerned is to institute appropriate civil suit in the matter for declaration of title in their favour and other constitutional remedies etc. Granting such liberty, this Court has set aside the impugned proceedings including the one in Ext.P9 herein, Hence, it is ordered that the stand taken by the 5^th respondent Village Officer in the impugned Ext.P8 refusal order rendered on 1.1.2019 is illegal and ultra vires and the same will stand set aside and the 5^th respondent Village Officer is directed to immediately take up the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P7 application for grant of location sketch, possession certificate in respect of the above said property without any further delay and will grant the same, if it is otherwise in order. It is made clear and declared that the respondents cannot refuse to issue such revenue certificates to the petitioner on the ground of issuance of Ext.P9 order and the

¶35

W.P.(C)No.592/2019

¶36

¶37

pendency of the impugned land conservancy proceedings, as such proceedings have already been set aside by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment. Necessary action should be finalized by the

¶38

1^st respondent for grant of possession certificate and location sketch to the petitioner without much delay preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶39

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

¶40

sd/ -

¶41

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.

acd

W.P.(C)No.592/2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 1812/2016 DATED 12/7/2016 OF PEERMADE SRO.

¶48

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF BASIC TAX FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,UPPUTHURA ON 10.2.2016 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 4.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER UPPUTHARA. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE D & O LICENCE ISSUED BY THE UPPUTHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF BENNY JOSEPH THE VENDOR OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 29.12.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE VILLAGE OFFICER,UPPUTHARA EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1.1.2019 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, UPPUTHARA. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO CLR (LR) 210/15/PER-TCO DATED 12.98.2016 OF THE SPECIAL OFFICER & COLLECTOR EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 7.11.2018 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO 40002/2016 AND CONNECTED CASES.

¶49

TRUE COPY

¶50

P.S.TO JUDGE.

C.a.Muhammed Kunju, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.a.Muhammed Kunju, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasanna Kumaran Nair, Vs State of Kerala

Susheela Amma, Vs the Village Officer

Rupen Philip, Vs State of Kerala

Thalekkara Kunhimoideen @ Bava Vs the District Collector

Oorakathodi Asiya Vs Land Tribunal (Land Reforms)

Ramla, Vs Land Tribunal