Dismissed

Devassia Poulose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Sept 2022WP(C)/8734/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged orders rejecting the petitioner's request for land assignment and Patta issuance on grounds of suppressing prior judgments. The court dismissed the petition, holding the petitioner could not re-agitate a matter already decided on merits by the High Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to seek appropriate remedy in the common judgment of the High Court.

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

¶1

W.P(C).8734/2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 1ST ASWINA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 8734 OF 2011

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

DEVASSIA POULOSE, S/O.DEVASSIA, PARAPPURATH HOUSE, P.O. EDIVANNA,, MOOLEPPADAM, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. N.SUBRAMANIAM P.T.GIRIJAN C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB AKSHAY R

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVT.DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001.

¶11

2 THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (NORTHERN REGION), KOZHIKODE - 673 001.

¶12

3 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, NILAMBUR NORTH P.O., NILAMBUR 679 329,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

4 THE FOREST RANGER EDAVANNA RANGE OFFICE, 675 541, NILAMBUR NORTH,, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, MALAPPURAM 676 505.

¶15

BY SRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL.GP FOR FOREST

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.P(C).8734/2011

JUDGMENT

Under challenge in this writ petition, are Exts.P10 and P13 Orders passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nilambur. The said Orders are seen passed in Exts. P8 and P9

¶21

applications preferred by the petitioner. Vide Ext.P9, the petitioner sought for assignment of 1.50 Acres of land in Resurvey No.1/1 of Akampadam Village of Nilambur Taluk and to issue Patta in respect of the same. Vide Ext.P13, the request made under Exts.P8 and P9 is seen rejected, for the reason that the said applications were preferred, suppressing the judgment of this Court in M.F.A.Nos.318/1983, 446/1983, both disposed of vide a common judgment dated 14.09.1988.

¶22

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for Forest.

¶23

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no suppression as alleged in Ext.P13 order, inasmuch as, the Conservator of Forests, Vested Forests, Kozhikode, was very much a party to the proceedings in M.F.A.Nos.318/1983 and 446/1983. At any rate, the petitioner's request is not liable

¶24

W.P(C).8734/2011

¶25

¶26

to be dismissed on the technical ground of the alleged suppression, if the petitioner is otherwise entitled for the relief sought for. In substantiation of the said submission, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, reported in State of Kerala and Another v. Mohmammed Basheer 2019 (1) KHC 750, based upon which, the learned counsel contended that no question of vesting arises, when a Purchase Certificate is issued under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, which tantamounts to conclusive proof, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court. Learned counsel further submitted that there cannot be any appeal carried from the issuance of a Patta, under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Thus,

¶27

the submission of the learned counsel in short, is that

¶28

inasmuch as the petitioner is fully entitled for the assignment of the land, as also, for issuance of Patta, by

¶29

virtue of his long and settled possession, as also, by the issuance of Ext.P1 Purchase certificate, the remedy to which

¶30

the petitioner is entitled to should not be deprived for the alleged specious ground of suppression of fact.

¶31

4. Per contra, this application was seriously opposed by

¶32

W.P(C).8734/2011

¶33

¶34

the learned Special Government Pleader for Forest. Learned

¶35

Special Government Pleader pointed out that dehors issuance of Patta under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, the petitioner approached the Forest Tribunal, Manjeri in O.A.No.72/1981, when the Forest officials proposed to take possession of the land, which was in the possession of the petitioner, treating the same as a Forest land. As per Order dated 19.05.1983, the Forest Tribunal disposed of the said O.A., holding that the petitioner is entitled to the declaration that he is cultivating plot No.B, (the property earlier referred to

¶36

having an extent of 1.50 Acres) whereas, he is not entitled to the relief in respect of Plot No.A (having an extent of 1.25 Acres), which is not the subject matter of the present lis. Challenging negation of the petitioner's rights over Plot

¶37

No.A, an appeal was carried to this Court vide M.F.A.No.318/1983. Challenging the reliefs granted with

¶38

respect to Plot No.B, the State of Kerala and the Conservator of Forest also carried another appeal as M.F.A No.446/1983. The petitioner's appeal was repelled, whereas the State's appeal was allowed for the reasons referred to in the judgment

¶39

W.P(C).8734/2011

¶40

¶41

in detail. The said proceedings have become final. Therefore,

¶42

Ext.P8 application, without reference to the finality in

¶43

respect of the dispute attained, vide the judgment of the High Court in M.F.A.No.318/1983, is nothing, but a clear

¶44

suppression of fact, besides being an abuse of process.

¶45

5. Over and in addition to the suppression component, it

¶46

was pointed out that the petitioner's claim was disposed of on merits by the Honourable High Court, which claim cannot be reagitated by virtue of Exts.P8 and P9 applications. Therefore,

¶47

no interference whatsoever is required, with respect to Ext.P13 Order, as submitted by the learned Special Government Pleader. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no suppression, whatsoever, inasmuch as M.F.A has been specifically referred to in Para nos.5 and 18, of Ext.P9 petition.

¶48

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court finds considerable force in the submissions

¶49

made by the learned Special Government Pleader. Having

¶50

perused the common judgment of the High Court in

¶51

W.P(C).8734/2011

¶52

¶53

M.F.A.Nos.318/1983 and 446/1983, as also, the judgment of the Forest Tribunal in O.A.No.72/1981, both of which was handed

¶54

over to this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as the said orders are not produced in the writ petition, this Court cannot, but find that the issue has been considered and found on merits by this Court, repelling the claim of the petitioner. If any aspect on merits was omitted to be considered in the said judgment, as the one which is sought to be espoused by the petitioner now on the strength of State of Kerala and Another v. Mohmammed Basheer 2019 (1) KHC 750, it

¶55

is for the petitioner to seek appropriate relief before the High Court in accordance with law.

¶56

In the circumstances, this writ petition lacks merit

¶57

and the same will stand dismissed. However, it will be open

¶58

for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy from the common judgment of the High Court in the M.F.A.s' above referred, subject to all just exceptions.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

C.JAYACHANDRAN
 JUDGE

¶61

NR/

Devassia Poulose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devassia Poulose 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Justin Jose Vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.

Badaruddeen. K.K Vs Kanhangad Municipality

Mini Shaju Vs Abdul Rashid

Rabia W/O.Late Ammadu Koya Vs Nanminda Rural Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

R. Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Biju John.M

N.P. Simi Vs M/S. Nair Brothers Carriers Pvt. Ltd.