Quashed

Vijayamma @ Leelamma v. the District Collector

Kerala HC10 Jul 2024WP(C)/3903/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order by the District Collector setting aside land assignment deeds. The Collector had exceeded the scope of directions from a prior judgment which only mandated demarcation steps, not cancellation of assignments.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 quashed; District Collector directed to reconsider petitioners' request to demarcate land within three months.

Vijayamma @ Leelamma Vs the District Collector — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 19TH ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

W.P.(C) NO.3903 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 VIJAYAMMA @ LEELAMMA, AGED 66 YEARS, D/O.THEVAN VISWANATHAN, PARAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTTIKANAM, PEERMADE FROM KANDATHIL HOUSE, CHEENTHALA 3RD DIVISION, PASSUPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI.

¶8

2 P.C.KUTTAPPAN, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O. CHANDRAN, PARAPPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTTIKANAM, PEERMADE FROM KANDATHIL HOUSE, CHEENTHALA 3RD DIVISION, PASSUPARA VILLAGE, IDUKKI. BY ADVS. C.S.MANILAL S.NIDHEESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU, IDUKKI-685 603

¶11

2 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, PEERMADE, IDUKKI-685 531 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. BIMAL .K NATH

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

¶14

WPC. 3903/2020

¶15

JUDGMENT ( Dated: 10^th July, 2024)

¶16

The petitioners are the wife and husband, the assignees of

¶17

land under the Land Assignment Act. The 2^nd respondent assigned 58 Ares of land in Sy. No.754 of Passuppara Village to Thevan Viswanathan, father of the 1^st petitioner, on 02.02.1976. Ext.P1 is the assignment deed in favour of the father of the 1^st petitioner. Likewise, another 58 Ares of the property has been assigned by the 2^nd petitioner from the 2^nd respondent on 05.03.1976 as per

¶18

Ext.P2. Based on Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioners are in possession of the respective holdings, and they have remitted the tax. While so, the father of the 1^st petitioner died, and the 1^st petitioner is the only surviving legal heir entitled to the title by virtue of Rule 8(1) of

¶19

the Land Assignment Rules.

¶20

Though the land has been put in possession of the

¶21

assignees, no steps have been taken to demarcate the property so

¶22

¶23

WPC. 3903/2020

¶24

assigned, despite several requests from the petitioners. In 1979, the 2^nd petitioner got a Government Job as a Constable in the Police Department, and he was compelled to shift his place of abode in connection with the employment, and therefore, for a long time, the request for demarcation of the property was not pursued until he retired on 31.05.2005. After retirement, he again took steps to see that the property is demarcated, but whenever he went to the respondent for demarcation, the reply was that the pattayam file could not be traced out. Ultimately, it was found that all the files were handed over to Vigilance in connection with Vigilance Case No.V.C.5/01/IDIC, which was pending before the Vigilance Court, Thodupuzha. In such circumstances, the petitioner filed a detailed request before the 1^st respondent on 28.04.2017; since no action has been taken, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.29350

¶25

of 2018 for a direction to demarcate the property covered by the

¶26

¶27

WPC. 3903/2020

¶28

assignees (Ext.P1 and P2). By Ext.P4 judgment, this Court disposed

¶29

of the writ petition with the following directions.

¶30

7. Accordingly, it is ordered that the 2^nd respondentTahsildar, may make a formal request to the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha, for getting the attested photocopies of the relevant records in relation to Exts.P1 to P-23 assignment deeds from that court and the said application could be filed through the prosecutor concerned attached to that court. Thereafter, the Court will permit the authorised official of the 2 respondent-Tahsildar concerned to Inspect the various documents to ascertain as to which are the relevant documents and records which are necessary for taking further action on Exts. P-1 6 P-2. The said inspection process may be permitted by the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha to be conducted by any authorised officer of the 2 respondent in the presence of official of the Court. Thereafter attested photocopies of such relevant records and documents in relation to Exts.P-1 & P-2 may be made available to the 2 respondent and if costs of photocopying is to be remitted, then the petitioner will bear the expenses in that regard. After getting attested photocopies of all such necessary records documents in relation to Exts.P-1 & and P-2, the 2 respondentTahsildar may take further steps on the request of the petitioner in accordance with law and he may pass appropriate orders in the matter after getting approval of the 1 respondent-District Collector. The petitioner will produce death certificates of her parents as well as legal hair ship certificate in relation to her parents. The entire process in this regard may be completed by the 2 respondent-Tahsildar, within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶31

The Registry will forward certified copy of this judgment to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattpuzha, at the cost of the petitioner.

¶32

¶33

WPC. 3903/2020

¶34

The petitioner may produce certified copies of this judgment before respondents 1 & 2 for necessary information and further action.

¶35

The Office of the Advocate General will forward certified copies of this judgment to all the respondents.”

¶36

Ext.P5 proceedings were issued by the 1^st respondent on

¶37

28.11.2019, by which Exts.P1 and P2 were set aside, and it was held

¶38

that the petitioner is not entitled to a fresh assignment.

¶39

Learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents

¶40

1 and 2 submits that Ext.P5 is passed in accordance with the directions issued in Ext.P4. In Ext.P4, this Court has directed the 2^nd respondent to take further steps on the request of the petitioner after getting approval from the 1^st respondent/District Collector. In such a situation, the District Collector thought it fit to go into the merits of the case and passed Ext.P5, cancelled Exts.P1 and P2, and rejected the applications, stating that the petitioner is not entitled

to any assignment.

WPC. 3903/2020

Heard Sri.C.S.Manilal, learned counsel for the petitioners

¶45

and Sri.Bimal K.Nath, learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶46

The petitioners’ request before the District Collector was

¶47

to demarcate the land assigned to the petitioners as per Exts.P1 and

¶48

P2. Because of the inaction on the part of the 1^st respondent, he

¶49

has approached this Court by filing Ext.P4 Writ Petition, and this Court has directed the respondents to get the certified copy of Ext.P1 and P2 from the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner, Special

¶50

Judge, Muvattupuzha and to take further steps pursuant to the request of the petitioners. It is to be noted that the request of the petitioners is only to demarcate the land assigned to them as per Ext.P1, but the 1^st respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction and has held that Exts.P1 and P2 assigned itself is wrong, and the same has

¶51

been set aside, and also held that, since the petitioner retired as a

¶52

Police Constable and has a house of his own, is not entitled to fresh

¶53

¶54

WPC. 3903/2020

¶55

assignment. Therefore, Ext.P5 is not in accordance with the directions issued in Ext.P4 or at the request of the petitioner.

¶56

In the result, Ext.P5 is quashed, and the 1^st respondent is

¶57

directed to reconsider the petitioners’ request to demarcate the

¶58

land assigned to the petitioners as per Exts.P1 and P2, within three

¶59

months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶60

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

BASANT BALAJI,

JUDGE

WPC. 3903/2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3903/2020

¶68

PETITIONER EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT DATED 2.2.1976 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT DATED 29.1.1976 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION IN WPC 29350/18 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 29350/18 DATED 8.10.2018 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.11.2019

Vijayamma @ Leelamma v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayamma @ Leelamma v. the District Collector

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

Rahmathullah P P Vs Neelam Shami Rao, I.A.S

Jasminerose.T .T Vs State of Kerala

James M David, Vs the Government of Kerala

K.M.Licy Vs the Nedungapara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No. E 135

N.R.Rajan, Vs the State of Kerala

Maniraj T R. Vs State of Kerala