Kerala High Court
Shaji Mon C.K vs The State Of Kerala on 7 April, 2026
2026:KER:31968
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2026/17TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.MC NO. 10464 OF 2025
CRIME NO.VC 03/KNR/2014 OF VACB, KANNUR, Kannur
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN CC NO.3 OF
2021 OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE
(VIGILANCE), THALASSERY
PETITIONER/ACCUSED 3 & 4:
1 SHAJI MON C.K
AGED 50 YEARS, SON OF GOPALAN
VAZHUTHANAPPARAMBIL, KAKKENCHAL,
CHERUPUZHA P.O., VAYAKKARA,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN - 670511
2 DIVAKARAN M
AGED 66 YEARS, SON OF KANNAN
MANIYADAN, KARUVELI, MATHIL P.O.,
ALAPADAMBA, KANNUR, PIN - 670307
BY ADVS.
SHRI.SREEJITH S. NAIR
SHRI.SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR (SR.)
SRI.SATHEESH MOHANAN
SMT.MAHIMA
SMT.RESHMA T.
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
THE STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682301
SRI.RAJESH.A, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
SMT.REKHA.S, SR.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VACB
THIS CRIMINAL MISC.CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 27.03.2026 AND THE COURT ON 07.04.2026 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:31968
CRL.M.C.NO. 10464 OF 2025
2
CR
ORDER
Dated this the 7th day of April, 2026 This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash all further proceedings in C.C.No.3/2021 on the files of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thalassery. The petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 4 in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the VACB. Perused the relevant decisions placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
3. As per the final report, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act, 1988' for short) as well as 2026:KER:31968 CRL.M.C.NO. 10464 OF 2025 3 under Sections 120B, 468 and 471 of of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short). The precise allegation of the prosecution is that, in relation to property having an extent of 3.7250 hectares of land in Re.Sy.No.199/1 (old Sy.No.295/PT) which stood in the Tharavadu of Kuttoor Vengayil, the 6th accused, by taking advantage of showing the name of one Rayarappan Nair as the person in possession of the said property in the revenue records, attempted to remit tax for the said land with an intention to obtain the said land, where the real owners of the land failed to look after. On this premise, the 6th accused approached the 4th accused, the Village Assistant, and requested to remit tax in respect of 1.2141 hectares of land in the name of the 7th accused, who is the mother-in- law of the 6th accused, and 0.8094 hectares in the name of the 8th accused, who is the husband of his sister. The further allegation is that, on this premise, the 6 th accused hatched 2026:KER:31968 CRL.M.C.NO. 10464 OF 2025 4 conspiracy with accused Nos.2 and 3, along with accused Nos.7 and 8, and obtained plan, location certificate, etc. and produced before the Land Tribunal, Payyannur, in SM Proceedings. Thereafter, by influencing the 1st accused, the Additional Tahsildar, through the 5th accused, who had been working as an agent for obtaining purchase certificates, accused Nos.7 and 8 obtained purchase certificates in their names from the Land Tribunal, Payyannur and thereby all the accused persons committed the above offences.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are innocent. As per the statement of Sri. Muhammed Yoosaf. E. (CW37), during the period when the Village Officer given the report which led to issuance of SM proceedings granting Pattah in respect of the said property in SM Nos.262/2007 and 263/2007, dated 26.09.2008, accused Nos.3 and 4 were not working as Village Officers in Peringome Village. The statement of 2026:KER:31968 CRL.M.C.NO. 10464 OF 2025 5 Sri.Muhammed Yoosaf E., who worked as the Deputy Collector during the relevant period, would indicate that Sri.Divakaran M. worked as Village Assistant from 08.01.1996 to 17.07.2002, Sri.C.K.Shajimon worked as Village Assistant from 26.05.2003, and during the relevant time, from 25.10.2006 to 29.05.2007, one Sri.Ramachandran Nair was the Village Officer in Peringome Village.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, in this case, the report which led to issuance of Pattah and SM proceedings, which is the subject matter of the dispute herein stemmed at the option of the Village Officer, who is the 2nd accused. At the same time, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners further that, the only the allegation now subsisting as against the petitioners is issuance of tax receipts by the 4th accused in the name of Sri.Damodaran for the period 2002 - 2003 as per tax receipt dated 16.07.2002, and issuance of tax receipt 2026:KER:31968 CRL.M.C.NO. 10464 OF 2025 6 in the name of Smt.Devaki Amma by the 3rd accused during the period 2003 -2004 as per receipt dated 10.06.2003. It is submitted further that after the coming into force of the Land Reforms Act, tax would not be collected in the name of the Janmi and in such instances, the Revenue Officers used to collect tax from the person who are ready to pay the same and that by itself, in no way confer title upon anybody, and if so, mere receipt of tax, based on the two tax receipts referred already would not by itself is insufficient to fasten the criminal culpability for the offences alleged and therefore, the case against the petitioners, who are accused Nos.3 and 4, is liable to be quashed.
6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor filed a statement of the Dy.SP, VACB, and paragraph Nos.6 - 15 therein are relied on by the learned Special Public Prosecutor to hold that, prima facie, the allegations against the petitioners are made out, or atleast a strong suspicion to go 2026:KER:31968 CRL.M.C.NO. 10464 OF 2025 7 for trial. In such a case, quashment of the proceedings at the pre-trial stage could not be opted. Paragraph Nos.6 to 15 are extracted as under:
"6. The investigation revealed that 3,7250 hectares of land in Re-survey No. 199/1 of Peringome Village belonged to Vengayil family of Kuttoor. As the land was rocky, not much valuable plot and non-fertile, the owners had not paid attention to it for a long period. Further, it was falsely recorded the name of the owner of the land as Chidiyile Veettil Rayarappan Nair during 1996-97 during the time of Re-Survey. Taking advantage of this situation, Accused No. 6. Ramachandran C.P.(private person)., approached the Petitioner/Accused No. 4. Divakaran M., Village Assistant, Peringome, and conspired with him to remit land tax for 1-2141 hectares in the name of Accused No.
7. Devi Amma, and for 0.8094 hectares in the name of Accused No. 8, Kadayakkara Damodaran, for the year 2002. Accused No. 7 was the mother-in-law of A6, and Accused No. 8 was his brother-in-law, the 4th accused/Petitioner issued the land tax receipt in the names of Accused Nos. 7 and 8 for the year 2002 (Exbt- C,D&R). Thereafter, Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 6, acting in conspiracy, continued to levy and collect tax in the succeeding years and issued tax receipts (Exbt- E,F,G,S,T,V). Subsequently, they fabricated tax receipts for the previous years and farnished false information to the effect that the said land had been in continuous possession of A7 & A8 for several years. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 prepared the plan and location certificate, booked the SM before the Payyannur Land Tribunal, 2026:KER:31968 CRL.M.C.NO. 10464 OF 2025 8 and, in conspiracy with the 5th accused, who had been functioning as a pattayam agent at the Land Tribunal, carried out all the subsequent procedures. Accused No. 1, the Revenue Inspector was approached and influenced by A2, A3, and AS to submit a suo moto report, along with forged tax receipts, before the Land Tribunal, Payyannur (Exbt A &B) for obtaining purchase certificates in favour of A7 and A8. They further influenced the Ist accused and Additional Tahsildar Ramachandran T., and through this conspiracy, pattayams were issued in the names of Accused Nos. 7 and 8.
7. Accused Nos. 2, 3, and 4, who were legally obligated to verify that the applicant's name appeared in the Thandaper Register, that the applicant was in actual possession of the land after the 1996-97 Re-survey, and that land tax for previous years had been duly paid and correctly recorded in the Basic Tax Register, failed to discharge their duties and, in fraudulently, issued tax receipts in the names of Accused Nos. 7 and 8.
8. Subsequently, influenced by A2, the Petitioners/Accused No. 3&4. and Accused Nos. 5 to 8, Accused No. I conspired with them and deliberately failed to verify whether the tenants had actually held the land prior to 1964. Subsequently, Accused No. 1 fraudulently submitted the SM report before the Land Tribunal Tahsildar for the issuance of Purchase Certificates to A7 and A8, without conducting any proper verification. It was observed that tax receipts dated 03.10.1968, 18.10.1968, 01.04.1964, and 24.07.1972 were produced along with the SM application (Exbt.A&B). Subsequent investigation, however, revealed that these receipts were forged at a later date, and all the original receipts could not be traced. Since 2026:KER:31968 CRL.M.C.NO. 10464 OF 2025 9 these receipts constituted the primary evidence in the case, their disappearance indicates a deliberate attempt to destroy or suppress evidence. Surprisingly, copies of these receipts were not available in the SM file, nor were their numbers recorded in the concerned official records.
9. Investigation further revealed that the Petitioner/Accused No. 3 issued the possession certificates to both Accused No. 7 and Accused No. 8 on 05.08.2008 for obtaining pattayam in SM Files 262/07 and 263/07.
10. It is respectfully submitted that the then Village Officer (Accused No. 2), who prepared both the SM reports, clearly stated therein that the actual owner of the said land is Kuttoor Vengayil Rayarappan Nayanar, and that the land was erroneously recorded in the Basic Tax Register during the re-survey conducted in 1997 as Thadiyile Veettil Rayarappan Nair. This fact can be revealed only upon examination of the tax receipts issued prior to the re-survey. However, all the original tax receipts could not be traced during the investigation, as they were deliberately made to disappear by the accused persons.
11. The Petitioners submit that the Village Officer and Village Assistant do not have the authority to adjudicate or determine the ownership of property. However, it is respectfully submitted that they are duty-bound to verify the authenticity and genuineness of the land tax receipts, as well as the relevant entries in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) and the Thandaper Register, before issuing any fresh land tax receipt to the remitter.
12. The Petitioners/Accused Nos. 3 and 4 contend that no witness statements or documents exist to substantiate the allegations against them.
2026:KER:31968 CRL.M.C.NO. 10464 OF 2025 10 However, it is respectfully submitted that several witness statements were recorded during the investigation, which clearly disclose their involvement in the alleged fraud.
13. One of the witnesses, Smt. Sujatha K., Additional Tahsildar, Taliparamba, stated that the Village Officer must collect land tax from the landowner only after verifying the previous years' tax remittance by examining office records. She further stated that the Land Tribunal Tahsildar takes further action, including issuing a notice to the concerned landowner, only upon receiving the SM report from the Village Officer.
14. It is respectfully submit that Purchase Certificate can be issued only after ensuring that the land was in the possession of the tenant/applicant prior to 01.04.1964. The Petitioner/Accused failed to verify the authenticity of the tax receipts submitted by A7 and AS and did not conduct site inspection as required under the Government Rules. Instead, the Petitioner/Accused fraudulently recommended the SM report, which contained forged tax receipts.
15. Another witness, Santhosh. A.T., So Thankappan Pillai, Village Officer, Peringome, produced the Basic Tax Register and Thandaper Register to the investigating officer and deposed that 3.7250 hectares of land in Re-Survey No. 199/1 had been subdivided into 199/1 and 199/7 as per the order of the Tahsildar, Taliparamba, vide No. D 1608/96 dated 29.10.1997. Upon subdivision, 2.2415 hectares of land in Re-Survey No. 199/7 came under the ownership of Kaavile Valappil Unnikrishnan, while the land in Re-Survey No. 199/1 was not transferred to anyone. He further deposed that the Petitioners/Accused collected land tax from Devi 2026:KER:31968 CRL.M.C.NO. 10464 OF 2025 11 Amma for 1.2141 hectares in R.S. No. 199/1 and from Damodaran for 0.8094 hectares during 2002, without specifying under which order or reference the tax was collected. Up to 2002, Accused Nos. 7 and 8 had no claim to the land, and therefore, the collection of tax from them by the Petitioners/Accused was illegal. Similarly, witness Sasi, Village Assistant, Peringome, corroborated the above facts in his statement."
7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor given much emphasis on the statement of Sujatha - CW30 to establish the complicity of the petitioners, supported by the tax receipts dated 10.06.2003, produced by the prosecution as Ext.E, and 16.07.2002, produced by the prosecution as Ext.D, showing issuance of tax receipt in the name of Smt. Devi Amma by the 3rd accused in favour of the 7th accused and by accused No.4 in the name of the 8 th accused, i.e, Sri.Damodaran.
8. To be on the crux of the matter, as things stand now, as reported by the Special Tahsildar (LR), Payyannur, as per letter dated 23.01.2026, and as discernible from the SM proceedings, the purchase certificates 2026:KER:31968 CRL.M.C.NO. 10464 OF 2025 12 in respect of the land in dispute were issued on 26.09.2008 by the Land Tribunal. However, as per orders in AA 103/2011 and AA 102/2011 dated 05.11.2024, orders of the Land Tribunal No.II, Payyannur in SM 262/2007 and 263/2007 were set aside and the matter now remanded back for fresh consideration by the Land Tribunal. Now, the question poses for consideration is whether, prima facie, the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners are made out, or whether the plea for quashment is liable to succeed.
9. No doubt, the only material now available before this Court is Exts.D and E, as referred above, which would show issuance of tax receipts by accused Nos.3 and 4 to accused Nos.7 and 8 respectively.
10. Apart from that, the learned Special Public Prosecutor also relied on the statement of CW12 in support of his contention. As per the statement of CW12, who is none 2026:KER:31968 CRL.M.C.NO. 10464 OF 2025 13 other than the Village Officer who was working at Peringome village as on 05.12.2014, in respect of receipt of tax as per Exts. E and D, there was no verification and the same were not collected in support of any documents.
11. In the instant case, the records of the prosecution would show that the properties for which purchase certificates were issued by the Land Tribunal, Payyannur, in fact, owned by the Tharavadu of Kuttoor Vengayil. But by mistake or otherwise, the said properties, as per the revenue records shown in the name of one Rayarappan Nair. The facts being so, the persons, who obtained purchase certificates in their favour, viz., accused Nos.7 and 8, did not have any right whatsoever over the properties. Even though it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, after the coming into force of the Land Reforms Act, tax in respect of the property could not be received in the name of Janmi and that by itself does 2026:KER:31968 CRL.M.C.NO. 10464 OF 2025 14 not permit the revenue officials, including accused Nos.2 and 3 herein, who admittedly worked as Village Assistants at the time of issuance of Exts.E and D, to receive tax from any person who would have approached with readiness to pay tax. Such readiness to pay tax, if offered by any person, the Village Assistant should have verified their competency to remit tax, with a view to find him as a person having any title, possession or any other right under any enactment to remit the tax. Simply because a person offers payment of tax, the revenue officials or the village assistants could not receive tax without convincing the right of the person to remit the tax.
12. In the instant case, acres of land were assigned in favour of accused Nos.7 and 8 by the Land Tribunal, mainly relying on the village officer's report, which emanated from production of Exts.E and D tax receipts showing payment of tax by accused Nos.7 and 8, issued by accused Nos.3 and 4 respectively. Accepting tax, in respect 2026:KER:31968 CRL.M.C.NO. 10464 OF 2025 15 of acres of land from persons who did not have any connection with the property for which tax was offered would indicate that the same was an act done with guilty mind to get the properties in either way assigned in the names of the persons who offered payment of tax. In fact, when the orders granting purchase certificates in the names of accused Nos.7 and 8 were challenged before the appellate authority in AA.Nos.103/2011 and 102/2011, as per order dated 05.11.2024, the Land Tribunal Appellate Authority set aside the orders and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the Land Tribunal because of these facts. Thus the overt acts at the instance of the accused persons, including the petitioners herein, in the matter of providing unlawful enrichment as part of conspiracy hatched between the parties, by forging the documents and using the same as genuine for the purpose of misappropriation, can be found 2026:KER:31968 CRL.M.C.NO. 10464 OF 2025 16 prima facie. In such a case, quashment prayed for cannot be granted since the matter would require trial.
Finding so, this petition is found not maintainable and is dismissed accordingly.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Special Court forthwith.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE nkr 2026:KER:31968 CRL.M.C.NO. 10464 OF 2025 17 APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 10464 OF 2025 PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure 1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT IN C.C. NO. 3/2021 ON THE FILES OF THE COURT OF ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE, THALASSERY, Annexure 2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL.M.C. NO. 1070/2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 20/01/2025 Annexure 3 THE TRUE COPY OF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, KANNUR CITY DATED 21.12.2020 ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF WITNESS IN FINAL REPORT