Kerala High Court
Vijayamma @ Leelamma vs The District Collector on 8 October, 2018
Author: Alexander Thomas
Bench: Alexander Thomas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
MONDAY ,THE 08TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 16TH ASWINA, 1940
WP(C).No. 29350 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
1 VIJAYAMMA @ LEELAMMA, AGED 64 YEARS
D/O THEVAN VISWANATHAN AND W/O P.C KUTTAPPAN,
PARRAPPARAMPIL HOUSE, KUTTIKKANAM, PEERMADE
FROM KANDATHIL HOUSE, CHEENTHALAR,
3RD DIVISION, PASSUPPARA VILLAGE,
IDUKKI DISTRICT 685531
2 P.C KUTTAPPAN, AGED 68 YEARS
S/O CHANDRAN, PARRAPPARAMPIL HOUSE,
KUTTIKKANAM, PEERMADE FROM KANDATHIL HOUSE,
CHEENTHALAR 3RD DIVISION, PASSUPPARA VILLAGE,
IDUKKI DISTRICT
BY ADV. SRI.BIJU .C. ABRAHAM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT ,
COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU 685603
2 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, PEERMADE, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685531
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
WAGAMON-685503.
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.A.C.VIDHYA, GOVT.PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 29350 of 2018
-2-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
W.P.(C).No.29350 OF 2018
Dated this the 8th day of October,2018
J U D G M E N T
It is the case of the petitioners that the deceased father of the 1st petitioner and the 2nd petitioner (who is the husband of the 1st petitioner) are the assignees of the 58 ares of property comprised in Sy.No.754 Part in Block No.7 of Passuppara Village, Peermade Taluk, Idukki Revenue District, as per Ext.P-1 assignment deed dated 5.3.1976 and Ext.P-2 assignment dated 5.3.1976. That the said land was recovered from one Jose Mathew and George Mathew, as excess land. However, even after elapse of more than 40 years, the land has not so far been demarcated or possession conveyed to the assignees for the reasons best known to the respondents, it is averred. That the petitioners would contend that possession of the said properties covered by Exts.P-1 & P-2 are not being conveyed as the files WP(C).No. 29350 of 2018 -3- concerned are under the custody of the 4th respondent-Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, in connection with the Vigilance Case No.5/2001/IDK. That petitioners are being made to run from pillar to posts for the last more than 40 years and that unless a direction is issued by this Court, the respondents 1 to 3 will not take any action to demarcate and identify the property covered by Exts.P-1 and P-2 deeds and to give possession of the land to the petitioners, etc. That the mother of the 1st petitioner and 2nd petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition as W.P. (C).No.26325/2017 before this Court but the same was withdrawn with liberty to initiate a fresh Writ Petition. Subsequently, the mother of the 1st petitioner also died and the 1st petitioner is the sole legal heir, etc. It is in the light of these factual averments that the petitioners have filed the instant Writ Petition seeking the following main prayers:
WP(C).No. 29350 of 2018-4-
"i) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 to 3 to demarcate and convey possession of the land covered by Exts.P1 & P2 to the petitioners forthwith or within such time as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice.
ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P10 & P11 forthwith or within such time as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice."
2. Heard Sri.Biju C.Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.A.C.Vidhya, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. This Court had directed the 4th respondent as well as the respondents 1 to 3, Revenue authorities, to file separate detailed statements in the matter as to the reasons for not granting patta and possession in respect of Exts.P-1 and P-2 assignment deeds and as to whether the original records in relation to Exts.P-1 and P-2 and other related records have been forwarded to the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, pertaining to Vigilance Case, V.C.No.5/2001/IDK and whether the allegations in the said Vigilance Case is directly or otherwise WP(C).No. 29350 of 2018 -5- connected with Exts.P-1 and P-2 assignment deeds, etc.
4. The Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam as per letter dated 18.9.2018 has informed the Registry of this Court that in respect of the proceedings in V.C.No.5/2001/IDK, 16 split charge sheets have been filed and taken on file as C.C.Nos.39/2010, 44/2011, 50/2011, 59/2011, 71/2011, 72/2011, 73/2011, 74/2011, 3/2012, 4/2012, 5/2012, 17/2012, 23/2012, 28/2012, 32/2012 and 67/2013 and further that after establishment of Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge at Muvattupuzha, the jurisdiction to deal with those cases are vested with that Court and that all the above said 16 cases were forwarded by the Court at Kottayam to the said Court at Muvattupuzha, etc. Further the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha has also furnished letter dated 25.9.2018 addressed to the Registry of this Court wherein it is stated that some more time is WP(C).No. 29350 of 2018 -6- required for further verification of the voluminous of records and filing of further report, etc.
5. The 2nd respondent-Tahsildar has filed a statement dated 22.9.2018 through the learned Government Pleader wherein it is stated that recently as per letter dated 29.5.2017 of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, it has been informed that records have been taken in to custody in V.c.No.5/2001 and could be returned only after due permission from the said Court at Muvattupuzha. Further, it is stated in para 3 of the said letter that assignment order for the land in Sy.No.754 in Exts.P-1 & P-2 issued as per file No.C5-6363/74 of the District Collector, Idukki, further proceedings such as demarcation, inspection of the land and removal of illegal possession, if any, could be done after getting final order from the Vigilance Court and the files returned back from VACB, Idukki, etc. Further that original records, WP(C).No. 29350 of 2018 -7- files, survey sketches, etc., were taken by VACB and neither the survey works nor the joint inspection could be conducted by the Taluk Surveyor and Vigilance officer. Further that as soon as files are received from VACB, the matter will be taken up and resume the procedures for the issuance of patta and the property is kept as excess land under Government custody till date.
6. The 4th respondent-Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau has filed separate statement dated 18.9.2018 wherein it is stated in para 5 thereof that the vigilance records in relation to Exts.P-1 & P-2 were handed over to VACB, Idukki Uni while transferring the case and the VACB has re-registered the case as VC 5/2001/IDK and after completing the investigation, VACB had submitted the documents before the Court of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam, as 'Exhibit-J1' in 'D' Charge of VC 5/2001/IDK on 3.9.2011. Subsequently, the case has been transferred to the Court of Enquiry Commissioner WP(C).No. 29350 of 2018 -8- and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha, wherein it was renumbered as C.C.No.46/2016, etc. It is also stated in para 6 of the statement dated 18.9.2018 that FIR was registered only on 6.6.2001 and the records mentioned in the Writ Petition were seized by Sri.N.M.Thomas, Detective Inspector, CBCID, from the Tahsildar, Peermedu on 24.2.2001, which was included in file No.B11-218/76 Vol I of Peermedu Taluk Office and the CBCID had handed over the same to VACB while transferring the case. Further it is clearly stated in para 6 of the statement of the 4th respondent that the allegations in file No.B1-218/76 Vol I of Peermadu Taluk Office are not related with Exts.P-1 & P-2 assignment deeds in this Writ Petition. Paras 5 & 6 of the statement filed by the 4th respondent read as follows:
"5. It is submitted that on verification of the CD file and connected records in VC 05/2001/IDK, the documents related with Exhibit P1 & P2 in this writ petition are included in file No.'B11-218/76 Vol I' of Peermedu Taluk office, which was seized by Sri.N.M.Thomas, Detective Inspector, CBCID, Idukki from the Tahsildar Peermedu on 24/02/2001 in connection with the allegation that one Joshua arranged forged pattas in the name of Paulraj for land of 1 acre which comprised in Sy.No.661 in patta file No.C-1-218-76. The above documents (B11-218/76 Vol-I) including WP(C).No. 29350 of 2018 -9- original records in relation to Exhibit P1 and P2 were handed over to VACB Idukki unit while transferring the case (216/CR/2000) VACB re-registered the case as VC 05/2001/IDK and after completing the investigation VACB submitted the above documents before the Hon'ble Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam as Exhibit-J1' in 'D' Charge of VC 05/2001/IDK on 03/09/2011. Subsequently the case has been transferred to Hon'ble Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattupuzha and renumbered as CC 46/2016 and the same is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Court.
6. It is submitted that the FIR of the vigilance case registered only 06/06/2001 in this unit Vide Order No.E6(VE21/2000/IDK)24652/2000 dtd.24/05/2001 of the Director, VACB Thiruvananthapuram. The records mentioned in the writ petition were seized by Sri.N.M.Thomas, Detective Inspector, CBCID from the Tahsildar Peermedu on 24/02/2001, which included in file No.'B11-218/76 Vol-I' of Peermedu Taluk Office and the CBCID handed over the same to VACB while transferring the case. It is submitted that the alleged allegations in file No.'B11-218/76 Vol-I' of Peermedu Taluk Office are not related with Exhibit P1 & P2 in this writ petition."
Hence, it is clear from the statement filed by the 4th respondent that though the original records in Exts.P-1 & P-2 records have also been seized, the said allegations are not related to the assignment deeds covered by Exts.P-1 & P-2 in this Writ Petition.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered that the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, 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.P-1 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 WP(C).No. 29350 of 2018 -10- Court will permit the authorised official of the 2 nd 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 & 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 and documents in relation to Exts.P-1 & P-2, the 2 nd respondent-Tahsildar 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 1st respondent-District Collector. The petitioner will produce death WP(C).No. 29350 of 2018 -11- certificates of her parents as well as legal heir ship certificate in relation to her parents. The entire process in this regard may be completed by the 2nd respondent-Tahsildar, within six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.
The Registry will forward certified copy of this judgment to the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Muvattpuzha, at the cost of the petitioner.
The petitioner may produce certified copies of this judgment before respondents 1 & 2 for necessary information and further action.
The Office of the Advocate General will forward certified copies of this judgment to all the respondents.
With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.
Bkn/-
WP(C).No. 29350 of 2018-12-
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT DATED 5.3.1976 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF ASSIGNMENT DATED 5.3.1976 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 28.2.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE KUTHAKAPATTOM ACCOUNT OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27.3.2015 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.6.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.4.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28.4.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.