Kerala High Court
For Information Purpose Only vs Rangaswami on 10 March, 2021
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
WP(C) 22453/2020 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Present:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Wednesday,the 10th day of March 2021/19th Phalguna, 1942
WP(C) No.22453/2020(F)
For information purpose only
PETITIONERS
1. RANGASWAMI,AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. KADAN (LATE), CHINDAKKI, CHINDAKKI P.O,
MANNARKKAD (VIA), PALAKKAD-678 582
2. KANNAMMA,,AGED 43 YEARS
D/O. KADAN (LATE), RESIDING AT THACHANPADI,
PUTHUR P.O, AGALI, PALAKKAD-678 581
3. VIJAYA,,AGED 40 YEARS
D/O. KADAN (LATE), CHINDAKKI, 1ST SITE,
CHINDAKKI P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678 582
RESPONDENTS
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
PALAKKAD, PIN-678 001
3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OTTAPPALAM-PIN-679 101
4. MURUKESAN,
S/O. ARUMUGHAUDAYAR, AGED 51, PARAPPANTHURAI, KAVUNDIKKAL
POST, AGALI, ATTAPPADI, PALAKKAD-678 581, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
PARAPPANTHURA, MADUKKARI MARKET, MADUKKARAI P.O,
COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU.
5. VALLIYAMMA,
W/O. THAYAPPA UDAYAR, PARAPPANTHURA,
KAVUNDIKKAL POST, ATTAPPADY, PALAKKAD-678 581
Writ Petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be pleased to Direct the
respondents 1 to 3 to give vacant possession of 72 cents in Sy.Nos.343/1 and
343/3 abutting Thavalam - Parappanthara Road, to the Petitioners subject to the
result of writ petition.
WP(C) 22453/2020 2/5
This petition again coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the
affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and this Court's order dated 22.2.2021 and
For information purpose only
upon hearing the arguments of M/S K.S.MADHUSOODANAN, K.S.MIZVER,
M.J.KIRANKUMAR, M.M.VINOD KUMAR, P.K.RAKESH KUMAR, Advocates for
the petitioner, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the respondents 1 to 3, SRI. R
.SREEHARI, ADVOCATE for the respondent 4 and of SRI. K.RAJESH
SUKUMARAN, Advocate for the respondent 5, the court passed the following:
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, J
--------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.10176 of 2016
&
W.P.(C) No.22453 of 2020
For information purpose only
-------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of March, 2021
ORDER
I have heard Sri.K.S.Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.22453 of 2020 and Sri.R.Sreehari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.10176 of 2016 and also the learned Government Pleader.
2. Though there was a specific direction to the learned Government Pleader to file a counter affidavit, the same has not been filed. Further time of three weeks is sought for placing the counter affidavit on record.
3. Sri.K.S.Madhusoodanan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.22453 of 2020, would invite the attention of this Court to Exhibit-P1 order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam, under the Scheduled Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975 by which resumption of property having an extent of 7.50 Acres was ordered to be reconveyed. He points out that after the enactment of Act 12 of 1999, proceedings W.P.(C).10176/16 & 2 W.P.(C).22453/20 were re-initiated suo moto and Ext.P2 order was passed directing to reconvey 5.72 Acres in Sy No.343/1 & 3 of Agaly Village. An appeal was preferred against the said order by the 4th respondent. Profusely For information purpose only relying on Exts.P4 and P5 documents, the 2nd respondent allowed the appeal by Ext.P3 order. 5 Acres was ordered to be retained by the 4th respondent and about 72 cents was ordered to be restored to Kadan, the father of the petitioners. It is pointed out by the learned counsel, that a perusal of Exts.P4 and P5 would reveal that the property covered under the said documents are unsurveyed lands. However, Exts.P1 and P2 read along with Ext.P6 survey sketch issued by the revenue authorities would reveal that the property which was restored to the petitioners falls in Sy No.343/1 and 343/3. The learned counsel would also refer to the boundaries of the property as detailed in Ext.P1 and descriptions of the boundaries in Exts.P4 and P5 deeds relied on by the 2nd respondent to bring out the fallacy in the conclusions arrived at by the 2nd respondent in the appeal preferred by the 4th respondent. He would further contend that Ext.P7, an unsigned handwritten purchase certificate allegedly issued by the Head Ministerial Officer, Land Reforms was relied on by the 2nd respondent to pass an order in favour of the 4th respondent. He W.P.(C).10176/16 & 3 W.P.(C).22453/20 would point out that there was no Land Tribunal at Mannarkkad during the relevant period and the said document is a forged document. This fact stands substantiated by Ext.P8 information obtained by the For information purpose only petitioners under the Right to Information Act whereby the petitioners were informed that the file relating to O.A.No.31 of 1972 of the Land Tribunal, Agaly cannot be traced.
4. The learned Government Pleader shall specifically advert to the specific contentions raised by Sri.Madhusoodanan and place on record a counter affidavit.
Post on 05.04.2021.
SD/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE DSV/10.3.2021 /true copy/ Sd/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR