Kerala High Court
The Village Officer vs The Karnataka Fransalian Society on 5 December, 2016
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2017/14TH CHAITHRA, 1939
WA.No.564 of 2017 IN WP(C)28877/2016
--------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28877/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 5.12.2016
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
-----------------------------
1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KEERAMPARA VILLAGE OFFICE,
KEERAMPARA PIN-686 681
2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686 691
3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR,
KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686 691.
4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030
5. THE SECRETARY
KERALA STATE LAND BOARD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 002
BY SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN, ADDL. A.G.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER WPC:
---------------------------
THE KARNATAKA FRANSALIAN SOCIETY
(REG NO.83/72-73), C19/21,
PB-5557, 18TH CROSS, 13TH B MAIN,
MALLESHWARAM WEST, BANGALORE 560 055,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
AND MEMBER OF THE GOVERNING BOARD
REV. FR. TOMY @ THOMAS SCARIA KALARIPARAMBIL
R BY SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SR.)
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-04-2017,
ALONG WITH WA. 612/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J. & ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Writ Appeal Nos.564 & 612 of 2017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 4th day of April, 2017
JUDGMENT
Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.
These two writ appeals arise from a common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in two separate independent writ petitions which had raised a common issue of law. W.A.No.564/17 arises from W.P.(C)28877/16 whereas W.A.612/17 arises from W.P.(C)7365/16. State is in appeal in both the cases and the writ petitioners are the respondents.
2. We have heard learned Additional Advocate General in support of both the appeals and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in these writ appeals and with their consent, we are disposing of the writ appeals at this stage itself.
3. The writ petitioners had purchased certain lands and had sought possession certificates from the concerned Village Officer/Tahsildar. Insofar as W.P.(C)No.28877/16 is concerned, Writ Appeal Nos.564 & 612 of 2017 : 2 : the possession certificate was not issued, which occasioned filing of W.A.564/17. In W.P.(C)7365/16, the possession certificate was issued, but with an endorsement that it was a part of exempted plantation in terms of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The reason for refusal to issue possession certificate was that the land had been purchased for setting up an educational institution and it being an exempted land as a plantation, such a possession certificate for any other purpose could not be issued in the light of Ext.P4 communication dated 25.2.2015 issued by the Secretary, Land Board.
4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, allowed the writ petitions and directed issuance of possession certificates to the writ petitioners without any adverse entry or endorsement thereon. Being aggrieved by this direction State is in appeal in both the cases.
Writ Appeal Nos.564 & 612 of 2017 : 3 :
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the direction as given by the learned Single Judge requires no interference inasmuch as the possession certificate would disclose only the owner and the possession of the property. Whether the property is an exempted property or its user is restricted which cannot be changed would be a matter that would separately come up for consideration as the occasion may arise by its user, by the purchaser or by any other person. That would be an independent issue to be decided as and when it arises. Those proceedings would have to be initiated if at all in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Land Reforms Act or any other law applicable to the situation. But the occasion would only arise later, when any other user in violation of exemption is alleged. The person will have his own defence to those. Those proceedings cannot be preempted by any adverse entry in the possession Writ Appeal Nos.564 & 612 of 2017 : 4 : certificate. In other words, an unqualified certificate would not fetter the right of the Government in taking any action, if they are of the view that any law is being violated. That right is always reserved to the Government.
6. With these modifications/clarifications, these appeals stand disposed of.
All pending I.As. shall stand closed.
Sd/-
NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE jes