Remanded

Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Mar 2022WP(C)/1195/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two sets of petitioners dispute ownership of land in Kerala. Petitioners claim title via exhibits and seek survey; respondents assert ownership via civil court decrees. The High Court held that factual disputes restrict its jurisdiction but ordered a survey to resolve ambiguity, deferring other claims to post-survey.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 4th respondent (Tahsildar) to hear both sides and conduct a proper survey of the property covered by petitioners' exhibits, concluding within six months.

Thomas Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1195 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 THOMAS, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.MATHUNNI, RESIDING AT THARAKAN HOUSE, PANNISSERY, KOONAMOOCHI P.O., KUNNAMKULAM TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 504.

¶8

2 JOSE T.M. @ LAZAR T.M., AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.MATHUNI, RESIDING AT THARAKAN HOUSE, PANNISSERY, KOONAMOOCHI P.O., KUNNAKULAM TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 504, NOW RESIDING AT A1 SULIABIYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BLOCK NO.1, BUILDING NO.900018, COMMERCIAL FLAT NO.153, KUWAIT.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (P) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033.

¶13

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR - 688 001.

¶14

4 THE TAHSILDAR (LR), KUNNAMKULAM TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR DISTRICT- 680 022.

¶15

5 THE LAND TRIBUNAL/SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR), OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶16

6 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, SURVEY LAND RECORDS, THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶17

7 THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶18

8 THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR - 680 001.

¶19

WP(C) NO. 1195 OF 2022

¶20

-2-

¶21

9 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 001.

¶22

10 OUSEPH, S/O.PULLIKOTTIL THOMAS, PULLIKATTIL HOUSE, KUNNUMUCHI P.O., THRISSUR - 680 504.

¶23

11 JOBY T.A., THARAKAN HOUSE, KARITHA NAGAR, HOUSE NO.42, NURANI P.O., PALAKKAD , PIN - 678 881.

¶24

12 JOJU T.A., THARAKAN HOUSE, ELITE GARDENIA HILLS, PUZHAKKAL P.O., THRISSUR, PIN - 680 553.

¶25

13 JOSHY T.A., THARAKAN HOUSE, KOONAMMOOCHI P.O., THRISSUR - 680 504.

¶26

BY ADVS.SRI.GANGESH K.B., SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GP

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

WP(C) NO. 1195 OF 2022

¶29

-3-

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The controversy between the petitioners on one side and respondents 10 to 13 on the other, is with respect to a property, which the former claims to be in their ownership and possession on the strength of Exts.P1 and P2.

¶32

The party respondents, however, assert that

¶33

the property in their possession and ownership is completely distinct from that which is reflected in Exts.P1 and P2 title documents of the petitioners and therefore, that there is no real cause for any disputation, particularly because civil suits between the parties have already culminated in their favour.

¶34

Sri.Ajith Krishnan – learned counsel for the petitioners, further explained his clients' case saying that even though they are the owners of the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2, it has not been properly demarcated and that it will require a survey to be done, especially because the jurisdictional Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) had already issued

¶35

WP(C) NO. 1195 OF 2022

¶36

-4-

¶37

directions to the Taluk Surveyor, Thalappilly, to measure out and demarcate their property immediately. He submitted that, however, in spite of this, since no action was taken, they were constrained to pursue it, which has now led to Exts.P9 to P13 proceedings of the Government.

¶38

He thus prays that the competent Authority be directed to ascertain and demarcate the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2, by conducting a proper survey.

¶39

In response to the afore submissions, the

¶40

learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that none of the prayers sought for by the petitioners in this case are tenable because: for one, they are not in possession of any of the extents of land claimed by them; and for the second, the area in question is a 'para puramboke', which can neither be assigned nor transfered to any person, as per the applicable Statutes and Regulations. She then pointed out that Ext.P6 was a communication of the year 2006 issued by the RDO and therefore, that petitioners

¶41

WP(C) NO. 1195 OF 2022

¶42

-5-

¶43

cannot now rely upon the same to seek any relief in

¶44

this writ petition, particularly because they have made certain unwarranted allegations against the Officers concerned also. She concluded her submissions asserting that, in fact, pursuant to Ext.P6, no survey could be completed because the petitioners were not in possession of the land claimed by them.

¶45

When I evaluate the afore rival contentions, it is clear that the disputations between the parties are squarely in the realm of factual factors. Needless to say, therefore, this Court is proscribed from entering into the merits of the same, going by the well recognized inhibitions of jurisdiction, while dealing with the disputes on facts.

¶46

I am, therefore, of the firm view that, in

¶47

order to allay the controversy between the parties, a

¶48

proper survey of the property claimed by the

¶49

petitioners through Exts.P1 and P2, will certainly require to be done, particularly because

¶50

Sri.K.B.Gangesh – learned counsel for the party respondents, says that his clients' properties are

¶51

WP(C) NO. 1195 OF 2022

¶52

-6-

¶53

comprised of in Sy.Nos.111 and 112, while that of the petitioners claimed to be 109 and 110.

¶54

Resultantly, I order this writ petition to the limited extent of directing the 4^th respondent – Tahsildar (LR), to hear both sides and then take a decision as to the survey to be conducted on the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2; however, taking note of the submissions of Sri.K.B.Gangesh that there are certain judgments and decrees of Civil Courts covering the field with respect to the internecine disputes between the parties.

¶55

I make it clear that I have not found in favour of the petitioners affirmatively yet, and that it is upto the 4^th respondent to decide and conclude upon every relevant aspect, including as to whether they are in possession and whether the area in question is a 'para puramboke', as asserted by the learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶56

The afore exercise shall be completed by the 4^th respondent, as expeditiously as is possible and the resultant order communicated to the parties not later

¶57

WP(C) NO. 1195 OF 2022

¶58

-7-

¶59

than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶60

As far as the other prayers in this writ petition are concerned, I do not deem it necessary to consider them on its merits at this stage, since any investigation or enquiry as requested by the petitioners would become warranted only after the survey is completed and if any benefit falls in their favour. Therefore, all their contentions with respect to the same are left open, without being considered in any manner in this judgment.

¶61

I, however, record the specific submissions of Smt.K.Amminikutty - learned Senior Government Pleader, that, even assuming that the allegations of the petitioners are true, none of the Officers can be

¶62

found culpable nor can any imputations be made against them, because they themselves admit that civil suits were pending and that demarcation of the properties has not yet been concluded on account of various factors, including that they have not been found to be in possession.

¶63

WP(C) NO. 1195 OF 2022

¶64

-8-

¶65

As I have already said above, I do not propose to

¶66

speak on the rival contentions on this issue since any action as requested by the petitioners, even if

¶67

possible, would become warranted only after the survey is completed.

¶68

Sd/-

¶69

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶70

akv

¶71

WP(C) NO. 1195 OF 2022

¶72

-9-

¶73

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1195/2022

¶74

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶75

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.333/1963 OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER SRI.MATHUNNI 28/12/2006.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PARTITION DEED EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONERS 12/10/1992.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, KUNNUMKULAM 13/7/1999.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE PETITIONS, ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, KUNNAKULAM DTD. 03/02/1992.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROPERTIES TAX REMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE PETITIONS DATED 17/01/1992.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.B1- 11918/2006 DATED 13/9/2006 ISSUED BY THE R.D.O., THRISSUR TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT 03/09/2015.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7/9/2015 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED
	9/8/2016, ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶76

-10-

¶77

WP(C) NO. 1195 OF 2022

¶78

TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶79

EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.17265/PETITION C3/2013/LA DATED 8/3/2018 ISSUED BY THE KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT. EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER NO.17265/PETITION C 3/2013/LA DATED 18/7/2019 ISSUED BY THE KERALA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT TO THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24/8/2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 7/1/2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶80

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶81

EXHIBIT R13(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DATED 27.01.1977 ISSUED BY THE MULLASSERY LAND TRIBUNAL. EXHIBIT R13(B) TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 16.08.1966 IN OS 355/1963 OF MUNSIFF COURT WADAKKANCHERY. EXHIBIT R13(C) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN OS 84/2000, DATED 16.08.2001 OF MUNSIFF COURT WADAKKANCHERY. EXHIBIT R13(D) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.29917/2014 DATED 08.01.2015.

Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thomas v. State of Kerala

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

James K Joseph Vs State of Kerala

T. Mohanan Pillai, Vs State of Kerala

Salini Chandran Vs Manoj Kumar P.V.

Alekutty George Vs the State of Kerala

T.Sudhakaran Nayar, Vs State of Kerala

Premabai Krishnapai Vs State of Kerala