Revision petition by Kerala State Electricity Board challenging a 1977 purchase certificate issued to a cultivating tenant over land including a pond used by the Board. The appellate authority had dismissed its appeal for unexplained delay. The court found the explanation grossly inadequate and dismissed the revision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRP(LR) NO. 413 OF 2012
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OTHERS NO.9 OF 2011 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I,THRISSUR
REVISION PETITIONER/S:
THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDYUTHIBHAVAN, PATTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-695004.
BY ADV SRI.T.R.RAJAN,SC,K.S.E.B.
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KOCHUKUTTAN S/O.CHAKUMPURATH SANKUNNY, POONKUNNAM DESAM, THRISSUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK (DIED).
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SMT.R.RAJITHA SRI.P.SANTHOSH PODUVAL
OTHER PRESENT:
SC FOR KSEB B.PREMOD
SR.PP.V.TEKCHAND
THIS CRP (LAND REFORMS ACT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.05.2024, THE COURT ON 05.06.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRP (LR) No.413 of 2012
-2-
ORDER
Dated this the 05th day of June, 2024
The challenge in this revision is against the order of the Appellate Authority (LR), Thrissur,
dismissing the appeal filed by the revision
petitioner. In the appeal, the revision petitioner had assailed the order of assignment dated 01.04.1977 of the Special Tahasildar (LR), Ollukkara in O.A.No.1176 of 1976. By virtue of
the order impugned in the appeal, the predecessor-in-interest of the second respondent
was issued with a purchase certificate with respect to 3.165 Acres of land by accepting his claim of being cultivating tenant of the property. In the appeal filed with a delay of
12305 days, the revision petitioner contended as under;
CRP (LR) No.413 of 2012
A pond having an extent of 85 cents in Sy.No.1909
of Thrissur Village, known as 'kaikulam' belonging to Wadakkumnathan Devaswom was used by the Kerala State Electricity Board (the appellant), to treat its teak poles. The nearby landowners belonging to Chakkumpurath family annexed this pond with their properties and later partitioned the properties, including the pond. Thereafter, the predecessor-in-interest of the second respondent managed to obtain purchase certificate with respect to a portion of the property, including the pond. The Land Tribunal issued the certificate without conducting proper enquiry or following the procedure prescribed under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The property was later bequeathed in favour of the second respondent and he, in turn, sold the property to respondents 3 to 5. The revision
CRP (LR) No.413 of 2012
-4-
petitioner came to know about the issuance of purchase certificate only in the year 2007.
statement before the Appellate Authority opposing the prayer for condoning the inordinate delay as
well as the factual averments in the appeal. On
merits it was contended that, purchase certificate for an extent of 3.165 Acres of property was given to Kochukuttan after conducting due enquiry and affording an opportunity of hearing to the Jenmi. After issuance of the purchase certificate, Kochukuttan bequeathed his property in favour of the second respondent as per Will dated 06.01.1983. Later,
the second and third respondents, along with the
owners of adjacent properties, assigned their land in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5 as per
Sale Deed No.361/2005 dated 14.01.2005.
CRP (LR) No.413 of 2012
Thereafter, respondents 4 and 5 obtained building permit from Thrissur Corporation and constructed
an apartment complex in that land. After completion of the construction, respondents 4 and 5 approached the Thrissur Corporation for issuance of occupancy certificate and at that juncture, an objection was raised by the revision petitioner. As a result, the occupancy certificate was not issued. Hence, respondents 4 and 5 approached the High Court in W.P.(C) No.1850 of 2010 arraying the Thrissur Corporation as the first respondent, the Kerala State Electricity Board as the second respondent, its officials as respondents 3 and 4 and the District Collector, as the 5th respondent. That writ petition was disposed of on 21.01.2010, directing the Thrissur Corporation to consider and pass orders on the application for occupancy
CRP (LR) No.413 of 2012
-6-
certificate submitted by the writ petitioners. Accordingly, the application was considered and the occupancy certificate issued, overruling the objection raised by the revision petitioner. Consequently, the right and title over the undivided and indivisible share in the land, having an extent of 21.640 cents, vested with the 26 apartments owners in the building constructed by respondents 4 and 5.
in the objection raised by respondents 2 to 5 and dismissed the appeal holding that the delay could not be computed without producing certified copy of the impugned order and the revision petitioner could not establish its right over the property in question.
CRP (LR) No.413 of 2012
Board, Adv.Santhosh Poduval, learned Counsel for respondents 2 to 5 and Adv.V.Tekchand, learned Government Pleader.
that, as the purchase certificate was obtained by fraud, the delay is immaterial. Even otherwise,
the revision petitioner having got information about the assignment and issuance of purchase certificate only in the year 2007, limitation
could be reckoned only from the date of
knowledge. If considered in that manner, there is not much delay in filing the appeal.
submitted that, in spite of raising a contention
that the property originally belonged to
Wadakkumnathan Devaswom, the Devaswom was not
made a party to the appeal. Moreover, a vague
averment regarding the existence of a pond in
CRP (LR) No.413 of 2012
Sy.No.1909 and its user by the appellant/revision petitioner Board for treating teak poles, no material was produced to prove that the property originally belonged to the Devaswom and the manner in which it was entrusted with the appellant. It is also contended that, in the
absence of proper and acceptable explanation, the inordinate delay in filing the appeal may not be condoned.
perusing the records, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is impossible to accept that an authority like the Kerala State Electricity Board was unaware about
the annexing of a pond in its possession by neighbours, conversion of that pond and even the construction of a building over it. The revision petitioner's objection and appeal after 30 years
CRP (LR) No.413 of 2012
of issuance of purchase certificate lacks bona
fides and can only be perceived as an attempt to
cover up the lapses on the part of the officials concerned. I am also of the definite opinion that the explanation offered is grossly inadequate to
condone the delay of more than 30 years and decide the appeal on merits.
For the aforementioned reasons, the civil
revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN JUDGE
Scl/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inordinate delay of over 30 years in filing the appeal against issuance of a purchase certificate should be condoned
Whether the KSEB could establish a right over the pond land assigned as cultivating tenant property
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Kerala State Electricity Board
Kochukuttan
Jayan
Valsala
Ajith
R.Sethuram
V.G.Arun
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
