Allowed

K.M. Saidumohammed v. District Collector, Ernakulam

Kerala HC13 Nov 2020WP(C)/8519/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for quashing an order dated 17.02.2018 of the District Collector passed allegedly without notice. The Court set aside the order due to violation of natural justice and directed a fresh hearing with notice to all parties, scheduling an initial reconsideration hearing for 30.11.2020, with a fresh decision to be made within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P10 order dated 17.02.2018 set aside; notified to reconsider matter with notice to petitioner and respondents; personal hearing scheduled for 30.11.2020 at 2.00 p.m; fresh decision to be taken wit

K.M. Saidumohammed Vs District Collector, Ernakulam — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 22ND KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

W.P.(C) No.8519 OF 2018(L)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

K.M. SAIDUMOHAMMED, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.MAITHEEN, KOTTAYIL HOUSE, VARAPETTY, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686691.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SMT.M.ARDRA KRISHNAN SRI.JITHIN PAUL VARGHESE SMT.A.G.NISHA SRI.K.SUNIL SMT.C.V.VEENA

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030.

¶11

2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686601.

¶12

3 THASILDAR (LR), KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686691.

¶13

4 ADDITIOINAL THASILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686691.

¶14

5 SHAMSUDHEEN, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL KUNJU, KODACKADU HOUSE, MYLORE KARA, VARAPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686691.

¶15

W.P.(C) No.8519 OF 2018(L)

¶16

¶17

6 RAHIYANATH, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.SHAMSUDHEEN, KODACKADU HOUSE, MYLORE KARA, VARAPETTY VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686691.

¶18

R5-R6 BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH

¶19

OTHER PRESENT:

¶20

SRI K.J. MOHAMMED ANZAR - SPL GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(C) No.8519 OF 2018(L)

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 order dated 17.02.2018 of the 1^st respondent District Collector, as the same was passed without notice to the petitioner and contrary to the statutory provisions in the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1967. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to consider and pass fresh orders in the matter.

¶26

2 . On 13.03.2018, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions. Notice before admission was ordered to respondents 5 and 6.

¶27

3 . On 08.01.2019, counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 5 and 6, opposing the reliefs sought for in this writ petition.

¶28

4 . On 18.02.2019, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court passed the following order.

¶29

“The petitioner has raised a specific factual contention that he was never given any prior notice and reasonable opportunity of being heard by the 1^st respondent-District Collector before the impugned Ext.P-10 proceedings dated 17.02.2018 was rendered. However, it is stated in the top

¶30

W.P.(C) No.8519 OF 2018(L)

¶31

¶32

portion of internal page 4 of the impugned Ext.P-10 proceedings that despite notice, the petitioner herein had not turned up in the hearing process. The relevant portion of the said paragraph as given on the last paragraph of page 3 and the top portion of page 4 of Ext.P-10, reads as follows:

¶33

" മ�ൽ പ�ക�ര��ള റ�വ�ഷൻ ഹർജ�കള�ട�യ�� ബഹ��നട�ട 1 ഹഹമ��ത� ഉതരവ�നടറയ�� അ��സ�നത�ൽ സ'ചന 24/07/2017 ൽ പ�ക�ര� ബനട�ട കക�കടള മകൾ��നത�ന�യ� വ�ച�രണ ന�ശയ�ച 0 മന�ട1സ അയച�ര�നത�� ഹ�ജര��യ 22/09/2017 ൽ മരഖകള�ട�യ�� ട��ഴ�കള�ട�യ�� അ��സ�നത�ൽ റ�വ�ഷൻ ഹർജ��രന� മവണ� അഡ7മ�റ 0 അലകസ�ണർ മജ�സഫ ഹ�ജര�യ� എത�ർകക�കള�യ �'വ�റ��ഴ റവന=' ഡ�വ�ഷണൽ ഓഫ1സർ� 0 മവണ� ജ'ന�യർ സ'പ�ണ 0 മ��ൻസ� ടചറ�യ�ൻ മക�ത��ഗല� തഹസ�ൽദ�ർ (എൽ . ആർ.) ആയ പC1 . വ�ജയൻ ടക.വ�. എന�വർ ഹ�ജര�യ�ര�നത�� റ�വ�ഷൻ . . ഹർജ�യ�ൽ കക� മചർന�ര�ന എത�ർ കക�യ�യ ടകഎ� ടസയത� ��ഹമദ ഹ�ജര�ക�ത�ര�നത��ണ ഹർജ��രന മവണ� ഹ�ജര�യ അഡ7മ�റ 0 ഹർജ��രൻ അമ�ക വസത� 12 വർഷത�ലധ�ക��യ� ഹകവC� വച 0 വര�നത�ടണന�� ബനട�ട മ�� 0 വരവ ചട പ�ക�ര� മ�� 0 വരവ അന�വദ��ണട�ന�� റവന=' ഡ�വ�ഷണൽ ഓഫ1സർ അമ�ക ��വ�റ��ഴ കക�കള�ട� അ�1ൽ ��നK�ര�മC�ധ��നത�ന ല�ൻഡ റവന=' കമ�ഷണർ ഉതരവ�യ�ര�നത�ടണന�� എന�ൽ റവന=' ഡ�വ�ഷണൽ " ഓഫ1സർ ആയത� ടചയത�ട�ല M �ടയന�� മബ�ധ��ച�

¶34

From a reading of the above quoted paragraph of Ext.P10, it can be seen that what is stated by the 2^nd respondent is that he has given a notice to the petitioner to attend a hearing on 24.07.2017 before the impugned proceedings dated 22.09.2017 (Ext.P-8) referred to as first paper as per Ext.P-10 was rendered and that the hearing in the said matter, which culminated in Ext.P-8 order dated 22.09.2017 rendered by the 1^st respondent and that hearing in the matter was conducted by him on 22.09.2017, in which the petitioner or his representative had not taken part, etc. The said aspects would clearly imply that the so called notice said to have been given by the petitioner for the hearing on 24.07.2017 & 22.09.2017 are in respect of the proceedings which ultimately culminated by Ext.P-8 issued by the 1^st

¶35

W.P.(C) No.8519 OF 2018(L)

¶36

¶37

respondent on 22.09.2017. After Ext.P-8 proceedings dated 22.09.2017 issued by the 1^st respondent, the 3^rd respondentTahsildar has also issued Ext.P-9 order dated 28.10.2017, which is against the petitioner and it is thereafter, the 1^st respondent-District Collector has passed the impugned Ext.P10 order dated 17.02.2018. Therefore, these facts would clearly suggest and imply that the so called notice and hearing offered to the petitioner was only in respect of the hearing proposed on 24.07.2017 and is ultimately held on 22.09.2017 before the proceedings had culminated as per Ext.P-8 dated 22.09.2017 and not in respect of the proceedings as per Ext.P-10, which was finalised on 17.02.2018.

¶38

Accordingly, the learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) will get specific instructions from the 1^st respondent-District Collector as to whether the petitioner was issued any notice to participate in the hearing prior to the proceedings which was finalised as per Ext.P-10 dated 17.02.2018 and also attested photocopies of the despatch register maintained by the 1^st respondent will show that such prior notice was duly despatched to the petitioner and also if so, when such hearing was conducted prior to the decision that was rendered as per Ext.P-10 dated 17.02.2018.

¶39

The learned counsel for respondents 5 & 6 will ensure that copy of the registered deed No.1208/1985 (prior title deed of R-5) as well as registered sale deed No.2693/1994 executed in favour of the 5^th respondent and registered settlement No.414/2008 executed by the 5^th respondent in favour of the 6^th respondent, etc. may also be produced, along with their supporting affidavit for the perusal of this Court, within ten days.”

¶40

W.P.(C) No.8519 OF 2018(L)

¶41

¶42

Today, when this writ petition is taken up for consideration, the learned Special Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that Ext.P10 order passed by the 1 st respondent District Collector is one without notice to the petitioner and therefore, the said respondent is prepared to reconsider the matter with a notice to the petitioner and also to respondents 5 and 6.

¶43

6 . The learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for respondents 5 and 6 would submit that, for an early disposal of the matter, the parties are prepared to appear st before the 1 respondent, on a date to be specified by this Court .

¶44

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P10 order dated 17.02.2018 of the 1 st respondent for the aforesaid reason that the said order is one passed in violation of principles of natural justice, and by directing the said respondent to reconsider the matter with notice to the petitioner and also respondents 5 and 6. The petitioner and respondents 5 and 6 shall appear before the 1 st respondent on 30.11.2020 at 2.00 p.m. The 1 st respondent shall conduct a personal hearing either on that date or on another date convenient to him. It would be open to the

¶45

W.P.(C) No.8519 OF 2018(L)

¶46

¶47

petitioner and also respondents 5 and 6 to submit written submissions before the 1 st respondent, raising the appropriate legal and factual contentions. After conducting personal hearing, the 1 st respondent, shall take a fresh decision, standing in accordance with law, taking note of the legal and factual contentions raised by both sides, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, with a period of four weeks from 30.11.2020.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶50

MIN

¶51

W.P.(C) No.8519 OF 2018(L)

¶52

¶53

APPENDIX

¶54

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶55

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4TH 15/07/2015.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE UNDER RULE 18(1) REGISTRY RULES BE	APPEAL MEMORANDUM RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 OF THE TRANSFER OF FORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE 26/09/2016 OF THE	PROCEEDINGS DATED 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE (C)NO.36742 OF 20 OF THIS HON'BLE C	JUDGMENT IN W.P. 16 DATED 8TH JUNE, 2017 OURT.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE THE 1ST RESPONDEN	REVISION FILED BEFORE T DATED 13TH JUNE, 2017.
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT BE COMMISSIONER, THI	REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE FORE THE LAND REVENUE RUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE (C)NO.19191 OF 20 OF THIS HON'BLE C	JUDGMENT IN W.P. 17 DATED 9TH JUNE, 2017 OURT.
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE 22/09/2017 OF THE	PROCEEDINGS DATED 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P9 TRUE COPY OF THE 28/10/2017 OF THE	PROCEEDINGS DATED 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P10 TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE 1ST RESPON	ORDER DATED 17/02/2018 DENT.

¶56

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶57

EXHIBIT R6(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE	LETTER OF THE
	SHRI.K.M.MYTHEEN KOTHAMANGALAM.	TO THE TAHSILDAR
EXHIBIT R6(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE 2ND RESPO	ORDER DATED 17.06.2013 NDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE	THUNDAPER ACCOUNT NO.
	584 IN THE NAME VARAPETTY VILLAG	OF SAIDUMMA OF THE E.

¶58

W.P.(C) No.8519 OF 2018(L)

¶59

¶60

EXHIBIT R6(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT NO.1373 IN THE NAME OF URAN MAMMAD OF THE VARAPETTY VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT R6(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16.04.2013 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VARAPPETTY TO THE THAHSILDAR KOTHAMANGALAM.
EXHIBIT R6(F)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(G)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.08.2016 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(H)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2014 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R6(I)	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.3.2015 IN W.P(C) NO.3930/2015.
EXHIBIT R6(J)	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT R6(K)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 30.01.2013 OF THE TAHASILDAR, KOTHAMANGALAM TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT R6(L)	A TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DATED 07.05.2013 ISSUED BY STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER KERALA WAKF BOARD.
EXHIBIT R6(M)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2015 IN R.P. NO.630/2015.
EXHIBIT R6(N)	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10.10.2017 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT RECEIVED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT R6(O)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER TAKING POSSESSION OF OUR PROPERTY BY ERNAKULAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK.
EXHIBIT R6(U)	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 7.6.2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.35503/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

K.M. Saidumohammed v. District Collector, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M. Saidumohammed v. District Collector, Ernakulam

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

Nirmala College Ofhealth Science Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences

Nirmala College of Health Science Nutmeg Gardens, Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences

Nirmala College of Health Sciences Vs State of Kerla

Pastor v.K.James Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammed Jinoz Vs District Police Chief

Sheena Shivaprasad, Vs Ammini @ Syed Mohammed