Kerala High Court
Jacob Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 22 February, 1994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
MONDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 30TH MAGHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 27208 of 2006
PETITIONER:
JACOB JOSEPH,
POOVATHUNGAL HOUSE, LETCHMI,
S.BEND,MUNNAR-685 612,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY SENIOR ADVOCATE.SRI.KURIAN GEORGE KANNAMTHANAM
ADV SRI.THOMAS GEORGE
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA,
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,, GOVERNMENT
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
IDUKKI.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
DEVIKULAM.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
DEVIKULAM.
5. THE RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT,
DEVIKULAM.
6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ANAVIRATTY.
BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED ANZER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-02-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
PBS
WP(C).No. 27208 of 2006
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF PATTA ISSUED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.A),
DEVIKULAM
EXHIBIT P1(A) COPY OF SCHEDULE OF LANDS DATED 22.2.1994 OF -DO-
EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 22.6.1996 REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT
NO. 1930/96 OF SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, DEVIKULAM
EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 1995-1996.
EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF NOTICE DATED 14.5.97 TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF OBJECTION DATED 14.2.1998 FILED BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 COPY OF REPORT DATED 7.12.2001 ISSUED FROM THE 6TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 7.9.2001 FROM THE PETITIONER TO
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 COPY OF ORDER DATED 25.5.2002 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 27.7.2002 FILED BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 COPY OF ORDER DATED 19.2.2001 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 COPY OF ORDER DATED 31.7.2006 ISSUED FROM THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT NIL
/TRUE COPY/
PA TO JUDGE
PBS
8/3/2018
A.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
---------------------------------------------
W.P(C). No.27208 of 2006
---------------------------------------------
Dated this the 19th day of February, 2018
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~ The petitioner purchased 10 cents of land in Sy. No.435 of Anaviratti Village from one Benny. Benny had obtained patta as per Ext.P1 issued by Special Tahsildar (L.A), Devikulam on 22.2.1994. There were widespread allegations and complaints regarding the issuance of patta. An enquiry into this matter was conducted by the RDO. Thereafter by an order dated 25.05.2002 the RDO cancelled the patta, against which an appeal was filed before the District Collector, Idukki. The District Collector also concurred with the RDO and cancelled certain pattas including the petitioner's. The reason was that the petitioner's predecessor was given a land which was not included in the list of assignable lands. The land referred to in the patta of the predecessor, as Sy.No.435, actually situates in Sy.No.481. The Sy. No.481 is not included in the W.P(C).27208/06 :2:
list of assignable lands. Based on such a finding the District Collector cancelled the pattas.
2. It is to be noted that the RDO in his earlier proceedings dated 19.2.2001 had addressed similar issues by an elaborate order. In the said order he observed that the land held by the petitioners in that proceedings are included in Re.Sy.Nos.165, 166, 167 and 174 corresponding to old Sy.No.435. The categorical finding of the RDO with regard to that order is that the land in question is situated in Sy.No.435. There is no challenge against that order. In fact the RDO initiated proceedings based on a complaint raised by the Panchayat President. The RDO in his categorical finding observed that there is no reason to conduct proceedings for cancellation of patta in respect of the land in question. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the RDO as well as the District Collector to reconsider the order passed by the RDO dated 19.02.2001. If the land in question is situated in old Sy.No.435, entire proceedings now initiated for W.P(C).27208/06 :3:
cancellation is unjustifiable. Therefore, the present orders are passed without adverting to the proceedings of RDO dated 19.02.2001 produced as Ext.P10. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside for reconsideration.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be a direction to the RDO to find out whether the old survey number of the land in question is 435 or not. If it is found that the land is situated in old Sy.No.435, certainly the entire proceedings should be dropped.
The writ petition is thus, allowed quashing the impugned orders as above. RDO should reconsider the matter within four months after issuing notice to the respondents and after adverting to Ext.P10.
Sd/-
(A.Muhamed Mustaque, Judge) okb.
//True copy// P.A. to Judge