Allowed

V.P.Hassan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 May 2023WP(C)/220/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the Tahsildar took illegal possession of the petitioner's property without a prior hearing or proper inquiry regarding title. The petition was allowed, directing a fresh hearing and review of the action within four months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Tahsildar directed to issue notice, hear petitioner appositely, and review action within four months.

V.P.Hassan Vs State of Kerala — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2023 / 4TH JYAISHTA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 220 OF 2015

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

V.P.HASSAN, AGED 90 YEARS, S/O.AVARAN,
VELLIYAPEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, PANG DESOM,
KURUVA VILLAGE, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT

¶6

BY ADVS.
SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.)
SRI.M.DEVESH
SRI.K.C.KIRAN
SMT.MEENA.A.
SRI.SAJU.S.A
SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶9

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM - 676 506.

¶10

3 THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679 322.

¶11

4 THE TAHSILDAR, PERINTHALMANNA, PIN - 679 322.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.RIYAL DEVASSAY-GP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.05.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 220 OF 2015

¶15

-2-

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner challenges Ext.P5 Mahazar
specifically on the ground that the Tahsildar,
Perinthalmanna, did not measure his property and

¶18

has taken possession of the same without any

¶19

proper inquiry with respect to its title.

¶20

2.The petitioner asserts that the

¶21

property in question is not included in the
properties earlier directed to be surrendered by

¶22

the State Land Board and that the Authorities

¶23

did not identify it in the said ceiling case. He

¶24

arguesthat,therefore,unlessproper
identification of the property is done, it
cannot be directed to be surrendered; and
therefore, that the action of the Tahsildar, in
taking possession of his property without prior

¶25

notice to the person who was in actual

¶26

possession and without identifying the same is
illegal and unlawful.

¶27

WP(C) NO. 220 OF 2015

¶28

-3-

¶29

3.The afore submissions of Sri.Vinod
Ravindranath – learned counsel for the
petitioner, were controverted by Sri.Riyal
Devassay – learned Government Pleader, saying
that Ext.P5 Mahazar itself shows the procedure
followed by the Tahsildar while taking
possession of the petitioner’s property. He
submitted that, if the petitioner’s grievance is
only that same was prepared without notice to

¶30

him and without hearing him, it can be rectified
by offering him an opportunity at this point of

¶31

time; and thus prayed that this writ petition be
dismissed.

¶32

4.I have considered the afore rival

¶33

submissions and have also gone through the
materials available on record.

¶34

5.Ext.P5, as rightly argued by Sri.Vinod

¶35

Ravindranath, does not say that the petitioner

¶36

was heard, or that he had been given an

¶37

WP(C) NO. 220 OF 2015

¶38

-4-

¶39

opportunity to explain his position before the

¶40

action proposed therein had been taken. I am
certain that this ought to have been done; and

¶41

for that reason, I cannot find favour with

¶42

Ext.P5.

¶43

6.I am, therefore, of the firm view that

¶44

the procedurefollowed by the Tahsildar cannot
be granted imprimatur and that he will have to
redo the whole exercise as per law, after
hearing the petitioner.

¶45

In the afore circumstances, I allow this

¶46

writ petition and direct the Tahsildar to issue

¶47

notice to thepetitionerand hear him

¶48

appositely, thus leading to review of the action
taken in Ext.P5, if it is found so warranted, as
per law. This shall be done as expeditiously as
is possible, but not later than four months from

¶49

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶50

I make it clear that, though I have not

¶51

WP(C) NO. 220 OF 2015

¶52

quashed Ext.P5 Mahazar, the intent of this Court
is that the Tahsildar must review his action,
after hearing the petitioner and decide whether
any modification to the same is necessary, going
by the documents produced by the petitioner and
his contentions hinged on title and possession
on the property in question.

¶53

Needless to say, until such time as the
afore exercise is completed and the resultant
order communicated to thepetitioner, all
further action pursuant to Ext.P5 shall stand
deferred and the status quowith respect to the
property shall be maintained by both sides.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE

¶56

akv

¶57

WP(C) NO. 220 OF 2015

¶58

-6-

¶59

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 220/2015

¶60

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶61

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TALUK
LAND BOARD,PERINTHALMANNA DATED 12-01-
2010
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12-
08-2014 IN WPC NO 20054/2014
EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE
TAHSILDAR,PERINTHALMANNA DATED 31-10-
2014
EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION TO THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM DATED 04-
11-2014

¶62

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 01-09-
2014
EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
PURCHASE ISSUED TO THE WIFE OF THE
PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO PROPERTY
FROM LAND TRIBUNAL,PERINTHALMANNA DATED
26-04-1992

V.P.Hassan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.P.Hassan 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Joseph Michael Vs Ishita Roy IAS

Rosily M D Vs Anupaman C a

Vettikkavala Rural Co-Operative Society LTD.NO.Q1431. Vs the Kerala Co-Operative Ombudsman

Jiby Antony Vs State of Kerala

Ottur Service Co-Op.Bank Vs Tahsildar, Varkala

M.M.Sajeevan Vs Vellanikkara Service Co-Op.Bank LTD.NO.545