Bismi, Vs State of Kerala

¶1

2025:KER:30117

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON

¶5

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶6

WP(C) NO. 23098 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

BIJU JOSEPH, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O JOSEPH, KUNNATHUMATTATHIL HOUSE, KOTTOPADAM NO.3 VILLAGE, MANNARKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678583.

¶9

BY ADV VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 682031.

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR O/O DISTRICT REGISTRAR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678001.

¶13

3 THE SUB REGISTRAR, AGALI SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, AGALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678581

¶14

4 TAHASILDAR ATTAPPADI TRIBAL TALUK, ATTAPPADI, AGALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678581.

¶15

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KALLAMALA VILLAGE OFFICE, KALLAMALA, PALAKKAD, PIN – 678582.

¶16

WP(C) Nos.23098 and 23071 of 2023 2 2025:KER:30117

¶17

OTHER PRESENT

¶18

BY ADV.SRI.E.G.GORDEN, SR GP

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.04.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).23071/2023, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C) Nos.23098 and 23071 of 2023 3 2025:KER:30117

¶21

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶22

PRESENT

¶23

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON

¶24

MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶25

WP(C) NO. 23071 OF 2023

¶26

PETITIONER:

¶27

BISMI, AGED 49 YEARS,
W/O BIJU JOSEPH, KUNNATHUMATTATHIL HOUSE,
KOTTOPADAM NO.3 VILLAGE, MANNARKAD TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678583.

¶28

BY ADVS.
VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
SUSANTH SHAJI
AMRITHA.J
ALBIN A. JOSEPH
VIPIN C. VARGHESE
JISHNU A.L.
KURUVILLA MATHEW

¶29

RESPONDENTS:

¶30

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN – 695001.

¶31

2 THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, O/O DISTRICT REGISTRAR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678001.

¶32

3 THE SUB REGISTRAR, AGALI SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, AGALI, PIN – 678581.

¶33

WP(C) Nos.23098 and 23071 of 2023 4 2025:KER:30117

¶34

4TAHASILDAR,
ATTAPPADI TRIBAL TALUK, ATTAPPADI, AGALI,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN – 678581.

¶35

5THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KALLAMALA VILLAGE OFFICE,
KALLAMALA, PIN – 678582.

¶36

OTHER PRESENT

¶37

BY ADV.SRI.E.G.GORDEN, SR GP

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07.04.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).23098/2023, THE COURT ON
THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

WP(C) Nos.23098 and 23071 of 2023 5 2025:KER:30117

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

[WP(C) Nos.23098 and 23071 of 2023]

¶42

The petitioners in these writ petitions states that

¶43

they came into possession of various extents of properties pursuant to Ext.P1 sale deeds executed during 2017. They further contend that their predecessor-in-interest came into possession of the properties with reference to various documents executed during 1982 and the property was infact originally owned by a Scheduled Tribe person on the basis of a document of the year 1970 – Certificate of Purchase, pursuant to orders issued by the Land Tribunal.

¶44

The petitioners point out that they had obtained some credit facilities from various Banks and ultimately for clearing the arreas payable to the bank in question, the properties requried to be sold. They further point out that after identifying a purchasor, when the property was proposed to be sold by producing a document for registration, the same is not being acted upon by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents herein.

¶45

WP(C) Nos.23098 and 23071 of 2023 6 2025:KER:30117

¶46

It is in such circumstances that the

¶47

captioned writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners herien, after submitting Ext.P4 representation before the 3^rd respondent pointing about the requirement for getting the document registered as above.

¶48

I have heard Sri.Varghese C.Kuriakose, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.E.G.Gorden, the learned senior Government Pleader.

¶49

This Court notices that the petitioners have filed the captioned writ petitions, as stated earlier, only pointing out that the documents are not being acted upon by the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents herein. In the statement filed by the 3^rd respondent, dated 24.01.2024, this Court notices that they have admitted that the petitioner herein is not holding any extent in excess of the ceiling limit and that the property is not subject matter of any restraining order from any authority. On the basis of the afore, the petitioners, are primafacie entitled for the reliefs as prayed for by them.

¶50

At the same time, this Court notices that in the statement filed as above, the authorities have made

¶51

WP(C) Nos.23098 and 23071 of 2023 7 2025:KER:30117

¶52

reference to the provisions of the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999, to contend that the properties in question are hit by the provisions of Section 5 thereto and the petitioners may not be entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in this writ petition.

¶53

However, with reference to the afore, this Court notices that a learned Single Judge of this Court in Kunjiraman Nambiar and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2018 (4) KHC 257] has already found that action under the provisions of Section 7 of the statute is warranted only if a member of the Scheduled Tribe, seeks restoration of the properties in the manner mentioned under the provisions of Section 5 of the Act. This Court further notices that in Prakashan v. Damodaran and Others [2013 (2) KLJ 150] as well as in Shaju v. State of Kerala [2024 (5) KLT 699] , it has been already held that unless and until the provisions of Sections 5 and 7 are found applicable, there is no manner in which the provisions of the statute can be made applicable.

¶54

WP(C) Nos.23098 and 23071 of 2023 8 2025:KER:30117

¶55

In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion

¶56

that the stand taken in the statement dated 24.01.2024

¶57

referred to above does not deserve to be accepted.

¶58

Resultantly, these writ petitions would stand ordered by holding that if the petitioners are presenting any documents with respect to the properties covered with Ext.P1 sale deed for further transfer to a 3^rd party, it is for the respondents 3 / 4 to act in accordance with law.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

HARISANKAR V. MENON JUDGE

¶61

ANA

¶62

WP(C) Nos.23098 and 23071 of 2023 9 2025:KER:30117

¶63

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23071/2023

¶64

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶65

Exhibit P1TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.170/2017 OF SRO AGALI. DATED
15.02.2017
Exhibit P2TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DOCUMENT
NO.97/2010 SRO AGALI DATED 29.04.2023
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
DATED 13.06.2023 ISSUED BY R3

¶66

Exhibit P4TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 27.06.2023 TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT.

¶67

Exhibit P5TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CARD SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON
01.07.2023

¶68

Exhibit P6TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CARD SIGNED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON
01.07.2023

¶69

Exhibit P7TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CARD SIGNED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ON
01.07.2023

¶70

Exhibit P8TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
CARD SIGNED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON
03.07.2023

¶71

WP(C) Nos.23098 and 23071 of 2023 10 2025:KER:30117

¶72

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23098/2023

¶73

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶74

Exhibit P1TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE SALE DEED
NO.171/2017 OF SRO AGALI DATED
15.02.2017
Exhibit P2TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE DOCUMENT
NO.97/2010 SRO AGALI DATED 14.01.2010

¶75

Exhibit P3TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE BASIC TAX
RECIEPT DATED 13.06.2023

¶76

Exhibit P4TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 27.06.2023 TO THE
3RD RESPONDENT

¶77

Exhibit P5TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT ON 01.07.2023

¶78

Exhibit P6TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT ON 01.07.2023

¶79

Exhibit P7TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT ON 01.07.2023

¶80

Exhibit P8TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT ON 03.07.2023

Bismi, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bismi, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Muhammed Rafeek Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Pradeep Narayan H., Vs State of Kerala

Aravind N.K. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Venugopalan, Vs the District Collector

Bullet Arts and Sports Club, Vs Peruvanna Klary Grama Panchayat

Raju Vs 1. Kerala Water Authority, Represented by Chief Engineer