Kerala High Court
Unknown vs Present on 10 January, 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 16TH JYAISHTA, 1940
WP(C).No. 15136 of 2008
------------------------
PETITIONER(S)
-------------
1 B.NARAYANA BHAT,AGED 68 YEARS,
S/O.B.VISHNU BHAT,BENGRODI HOUSE,
PERDALA VILLAGE & POST,KASARAGOD TALUK.
2 B.VENKATRAMA BHAT, AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.B.VISHNU BHAT,BENGRODI HOUSE,PERDALA VILLAGE & POST,
KASARAGOD TALUK.
3 B.GOPALAKRISHNA BHAT, AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O.B.VISHNU BHAT,BENGRODI HOUSE,PERDALA VILLAGE & POST,
KASARAGOD TALUK.
4 B.VASUDEVA BHAT, AGED 58 YEARS,
S/O.B.VISHNU BHAT,BENGRODI HOUSE,PERDALA VILLAGE & POST,
KASARAGOD TALUK.
5 SHANTHARAMA,AGED 31 YEARS
S/O.B.NARAYANA BHAT,BENGRODI HOUSE,PERDALA VILLAGE & POST,
KASARAGOD TALUK.
6 SRIVASA, AGED 27 YEARS,
S/O.B.NARAYANA BHAT,BENGRODI HOUSE,PERDALA VILLAGE & POST,
KASARAGOD TALUK.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN
SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR
SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO LAND REVENUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD.
4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD.
5. THE TAHSILDAR, KASARAGOD.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT A.C.VIDHYA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-06-2018,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.V.
WP(C).No. 15136 of 2008
-----------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:
--------------------
P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO.DR NO.421/64-65 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR IN
FAVOUR OF LATE B.NARAYANA BHAT DATED 10.1.2003.
P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.6.2003 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN THE
APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2003 PASSED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON
THE BASIS OF EXT.P2 AND THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE REVERSE SIDE OF EXT.P1.
P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.4.2006 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT,
P5; TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14.9.2007.
P6: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.7609/1991 DATED 2.7.2002
P7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S NO.29/1980 DATED 3.12.1982 ON THE FILE OF
THE SUB COURT, KASARAGOD (10)
P8: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN A.S.NO.62/1986 DATED 19.11.1987 ON THE FILE
OF THE DISTRICT COURT, KASARAGOD(10).
P9: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN S.A NO.312/1988 DATED 16.10.1991 ON THE FILE
OF THIS HON'BLE COURT(13)
P10: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.8.2013 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER AND JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT(C) ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF
THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P11: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
P12: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE SPECIAL REVENUE INSPECTOR, PERLA
P13: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN ATTACHED TO P12 REPORT OF THE SPL.REVENUE
INSPECTOR,PERLA.
P14: TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL PATTA DATED 27.7.1965 ISSUED TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER BY THE TAHSILDAR.
P15; TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DATED 27.7.1968 ASSIGNED TO THE
PETITIONERS.
P16: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.9.2003 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
--------------------
/TRUE COPY/
K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE
19.06.2018
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
------------------------------------
W.P. (C) No.15136 of 2008
------------------------------------
Dated this the 6th day of June, 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioners were given patta under Rule 9(2) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. The patta was issued in the year 1965 as per the proceedings No.DR 421/64-65 of the Special Tahsildar, Land Assignment, Kasaragod. In the patta, the Government reserved the full right over all the trees within the grant and specified in the schedule. Thereafter, the petitioners appear to have cut and removed four teak trees out of 13 teak trees. This resulted in a dispute. The petitioners moved the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kasaragod to de-reserve the trees. Accordingly, by Ext.P2 order, the Revenue Divisional Officer ordered de-reservation of the trees.
2. A complaint was filed by one Mohammed before the District Collector alleging that the order of de-reservation passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is illegal. Based on the complaint, the District Collector initiated proceedings. By W.P.(C) No.15136/2008 2 Ext.P4 order dated 03.04.2006, the District Collector set aside the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer. Thereupon the petitioners approached the Land Revenue Commissioner. The Land Revenue Commissioner affirmed the order of the District Collector. The petitioners refer to Ext.P12 report of the Special Revenue Inspector to claim that the trees in question were planted by them. The petitioners further refer to Rule 7A of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 to argue that Kumki land holder is entitled to appropriate the value of the tree except sandalwood. Rule 7A states that Kumkidars are entitled to true value except for sandalwood.
3. The question is whether the Revenue Divisional Officer is competent to de-reserve the trees after issuance of patta. There is no statutory provision stipulated under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules to review an order of assignment. The power traceable under Rule 8 to cancel registry is raised on totally different grounds. To modify or review the conditions of registry, the patta holder will have to move the Government. The Government alone can take such a decision to correct or modify the patta conditions in accordance with the Land Assignment Rules. Therefore, this Court is of the view that if W.P.(C) No.15136/2008 3 the petitioners approach the Government for modification of patta conditions, certainly, the Government shall consider the same in accordance with law.
Therefore, the challenge to impugned orders fail. The petitioners are at liberty to move the Government for modification of patta conditions. If the petitioners move the Government within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Government shall consider the same within a further period of two months, after notice to the petitioners. However, if the Government rejects, the authorities are free to auction the timber in accordance with law.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A. MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE smp