Disposed

M/S. Everest Stone Crusher and Granites, v. the District Collector

Kerala HC20 Nov 2020WA/1503/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of this writ appeal against a single judge judgment. The Chief Justice clarified that preliminary observations in the lower judgment are not binding findings. The District Collector is directed to consider a pending request to withdraw the prohibitory order within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal disposed; District Collector directed to consider pending representation and pass orders within two weeks.

M/S. Everest Stone Crusher and Granites, Vs the District… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020/29TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶7

WA.No.1503 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 18464/2020(G) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10.11.2020

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

M/S. EVEREST STONE CRUSHER AND GRANITES, M.P.89-V, HIGHWAY ARCADE, THANA, KANNUR, PIN-670 002, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER K.C.JAMES, SON OF K.C.CHACKO.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.K.T.THOMAS SRI.LIJO JOSEPH SRI.A.KEVIN THOMAS

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPOONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, KANNUR, PIN-670 002.

¶14

2 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, TALIPARAMBA, PIN-670 141.

¶15

3 THE SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, SREEKANDAPURAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 631.

¶16

SRI. JAFFER KHAN Y, GP FOR RESPONDENTS

¶17

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.1503/2020

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 20^th day of November, 2020

¶22

S. Manikumar, CJ.

¶23

Being aggrieved by the judgment in W.P(C) No.18464 of 2020 dated 10.11.2020, instant writ appeal is filed.

¶24

Brief facts leading to appeal are that the appellant is aggrieved by the failure on the part of the 1^st respondent District Collector in not withdrawing Exhibit-P13 prohibitory order dated 28.5.2018, issued under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 even after Exhibit-P14 final order dated 26.2.2020 of the Taluk Land Board.

¶25

The Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba initiated proceedings against the appellant on the ground that it holds excess land. On the basis of Exhibit-P12 letter dated 3.2.2018 of the Chairman, Taluk Land Board addressed to the 1^st respondent District Collector, to issue prohibitory order under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, in respect of registration of sale deeds, Exhibit-P13 has been issued by the District Collector. After detailed enquiry, Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba passed Exhibit-P14 final order dated 26.02.2020, holding that appellant is not liable to surrender any land as surplus to the Government and further action was dropped.

¶26

As per Section 101(4) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, the said decision of the Taluk Land Board is final. Limitation period for

¶27

W.A.1503/2020

¶28

¶29

challenging the order in the High Court is ninety days, has expired in May, 2020 itself. Despite Exhibit-P14 final order in favour of the appellant, the respondent did not revoke Exhibit-P13 prohibitory order. The appellant, who is in financial constraints and desirous of disposing the property and having found a prospective buyer, made Exhibit-P15 request dated 19.06.2020 to the District Collector, Kannur District, 1^st respondent, to withdraw the prohibitory order. Since Exhibit-P13 order is no longer sustainable in the light of Exhibit-P14 order and taking into account the principles enunciated by this Court in various decisions (Exhibits-P17 to P24), the appellant filed the writ petition and submitted that sale may be permitted subject to any condition that may be imposed.

¶30

A statement dated 23.10.2020 has been submitted by the Deputy Tahsildar in the writ petition, stating that the 1^st respondent is in the process of challenging Exhibit-P14 final order of the Taluk Land Board, Taliparamba. It is the contention of the appellant that the learned Single Judge did not follow the judgments relied on by the appellant, which are direct to the point. Moreover, instead of considering whether Exhibit-P13 prohibitory order can be continued in the light of Exhibit-P14 final order of the Taluk Land Board, the learned Single Judge has proceeded to uphold the issuance of Exhibit-P13 prohibitory order. Direction issued to the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of ExhibitP15 request, which according to the appellant, would be a futile

¶31

W.A.1503/2020

¶32

¶33

exercise. Hence, this writ appeal is filed.

¶34

Though Mr. K. T. Thomas, learned counsel for the appellant, made submissions on the memorandum of facts and grounds, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment for the reason that being aggrieved by Exhibit-P13 prohibitory order issued by the District Collector dated 28.05.2018 under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, appellant has filed Exhibit-P15 representation dated 19.06.2020 before the District Collector for lifting the said prohibitory order. Considering the pendency of Exhibit-P15 representation dated 19.06.2020, writ court has directed the District Collector to take appropriate decision on the said representation, strictly in accordance with law, taking note of the facts and circumstances and also the legal proposition, with notice to the appellant, as well as authorised representative of the contesting respondent, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.

¶35

However, Mr. K.T. Thomas, learned counsel for the appellant, further submitted that while the above direction was issued, writ court has recorded a prima facie finding in respect of certain issues, in particular, at paragraph No.10 of the impugned judgment, by observing that, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Taluk Land Board, appellant has attempted to transfer the land which was not seriously disputed. Attention of this Court was also invited to paragraph

¶36

W.A.1503/2020

¶37

¶38

22 of the impugned judgment that there are prima facie materials to pass an order under Section 120A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. Apprehending that the said observations of the writ court stated supra, would be considered by the District Collector, Kannur, while considering Exhibit-P15 representation dated 19.06.2020, learned counsel for the appellant seeks for clarification of the impugned judgment.

¶39

Taking note of the apprehension raised, we only clarify that any observation made by the writ court, while considering the facts submitted by the contesting parties, need not be treated as finding on such facts, and notwithstanding the above, District Collector, Kannur District/1^st respondent is directed to consider the representation dated 19.06.2020, as directed by the writ court, and pass orders in accordance with law, as aforesaid.

¶40

Writ Appeal is disposed of with the above clarification.

¶41

Sd/S. Manikumar, Chief Justice

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

Shaji P. Chaly, Judge

¶44

sou.

M/S. Everest Stone Crusher and Granites, v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Everest Stone Crusher and Granites, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chairman, Vs P.Sreekantan Nair

Benoy Sasi Vs Union of India

Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation Vs Aswathy P.

Alexander Correya Vs John Bosco

Mohana K. Vs the State of Kerala

Muppainad Grama Panchayath Vs M.P.Kuriakose