Kerala High Court
Shamon vs State Of Kerala on 9 September, 2025
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
2025:KER:67294
W.A No.2166 of 2025 and conctd. Case
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 18TH BHADRA,
1947
WA NO. 2166 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.8088 OF 2020 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 7 TO 12 IN WPC:
1 SHAMON,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.HYDROSE, POYLUNGAL HOUSE, MANJALY KARA,
KARUMALLUR VILLAGE, PARAVUR TALUK, MANNAM.P.O,
ERNAKULAM-683513
2 MATHACHAN.E.M
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.MATHAYI, ELAMKUNNAPPUZHA HOUSE, MANJALY,
MANNAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 983513
3 JAMSHEENA,
W/O.NAJEEB, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, MANJALY,
MANNAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM-683513
4 ABDUL KAREEM
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O SYEDU, PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANJALY,
MANNAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-, PIN - 683513
2025:KER:67294
W.A No.2166 of 2025 and conctd. Case
2
5 BINOY VARGHESE
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O GRACY VARGHESE, THERULLI HOUSE, MANJALY
MANNAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN, PIN - 683513
6 SHIBI K.A
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O ABDUL KAREEM, KALARIKKAL HOUSE, MANJALY,
MANNAM P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-, PIN - 68351
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN
SRI.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD)
SHRI.K.R.PRATHISH
SHRI.AKHIL BABU
SMT.KRISHNA DAS
SMT.HIMA A.S.
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 IN WPC:
1 OUR LADY OF DOLLAR'S CHURCH
MANJALY, KARUMALLOOR VILLAGE MANNAM P.O.
PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683513 REPRESENTED BY
ITS VICAR
2 SECRETARY
PARISH COUNCIL OUR LADY OF DOLOURS CHURCH
MANJALY, KARUMALOOR VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR
TALUK, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN - 683520
3 STATE OF KERALA
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAND REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
4 THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE
GROUND FLOOR, NEW BUILDING, BAKERY JUNCTION
ROAD, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA SENATE HOUSE CAMPUS,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695033
2025:KER:67294
W.A No.2166 of 2025 and conctd. Case
3
5 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,
ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 682030
6 THE TAHSILDAR
PARAVUR TALUK, PARAVUR, THALUK OFFICE PARAVOOR,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KARUMALOOR VILLAGE OFFICE, PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM,,
PIN - 683511
8 THE KARUMALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT
KARUMALOOR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY IT'S
SECRETARY., PIN - 683513
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI LEKSHMI NARAYANAN SR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 09.09.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.2167/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:67294
W.A No.2166 of 2025 and conctd. Case
4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 18TH BHADRA,
1947
WA NO. 2167 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2025 IN WP(C)
NO.27942 OF 2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONERS IN WPC:
1 SHAMON
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O HYDROSE,POYLUNGAL HOUSE, MANJALY
KARA,KARUMALLUR VILLAGE,PARAVUR
TALUK,MANNAM.P.O, ERNAKULAM,PIN-683513.
2 MATHACHAN.E.M,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O MATHAYI,ELAMKUNNAPPUZHA HOUSE,
MANJALY,MANNAM.P.O,ERNAKULAM,PIN-683513.
3 JAMSHEENA,
W/O NAJEEB,KALARIKKAL HOUSE,MANJALY
MANNAM.P.O,ERNAKULAM,PIN-683513.
4 BINOY VARGHESE,
AGED 37 YEARS
S/O GRACY VARGHESE,THERULLI HOUSE,
MANJALY,MANNAM.P.O,ERNAKULAM,PIN-683513.
2025:KER:67294
W.A No.2166 of 2025 and conctd. Case
5
5 ABDUL KAREEM,
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O SYEDU,PUTHENPARAMBIL HOUSE,MANJALY,
MANNAM.P.O,ERNAKULAM,PIN-683513.
6 SHIBI.K.A,
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O.ABDUL KAREEM,KALARIKKAL HOUSE,
MANJALY,MANNAM.P.O,ERNAKULAM, PIN-683513.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.K.SREEVALSAKRISHNAN
SRI.S.UNNIKRISHNAN (NELLAD)
SHRI.K.R.PRATHISH
SHRI.AKHIL BABU
SMT.KRISHNA DAS
SMT.HIMA A.S.
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT IN WPC:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LAND REVENUE
DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-
695001.
2 THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
GROUND FLOOR,NEW BUILDING,BAKERYJUNCTION
ROAD,UNIVERSITY OF KERALA STATE HOUSE
CAMPUS,PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,KERALA-
695033.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,CIVIL STATION,
KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM,PIN-682030.
4 THE TAHSILDAR,
PARAVUR TALUK,PARAVUR,THALUK OFFICE,
PARAVOOR,ERNAKULAM,PIN-683513.
2025:KER:67294
W.A No.2166 of 2025 and conctd. Case
6
5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KURUMALOOR VILLAGE OFFICE,PARAVUR,
ERNAKULAM,PIN-683513.
6 THE KARUMALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
KARUMALOOR,ALUVA,ERNAKULAM,PIN-683513, REP.BY
IT'S SECRETARY.
7 OUR LADY OF DOLLARS CHURCH,
MANJALY,KARUMALLOOR VILLAGE,MANNAM..O,
PARAVUR,ERNAKULAM,PIN-683513,REPRESENTED BY ITS
VICAR.
8 PARISH COUNCIL,
OUR LADY OF DOLLAR'S CHURCH,MANJALY,
KARUMALLOOR VILLAGE,MANNAM.P.O,
PARAVUR,ERNAKULAM,PIN-683513,REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY OF THE COMMITTEE.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI LEKSHMI NARAYANAN SR
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD ON 09.09.2025,
ALONG WITH WA.2166/2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:67294
W.A No.2166 of 2025 and conctd. Case
7
JUDGMENT
[WA Nos.2166/2025, 2167/2025] Amit Rawal, J.
Two intra court appeals have been preferred against the common judgment dated 9.1.2025 rendered in writ petition Nos.27942 of 2019 and W.P.(C) No. 8088 of 2020 filed by the petitioner-appellant and the Church-respondent, respectively, claiming the following reliefs. WP(C) No.27942 of 2019
i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the Ext.P24 order to the extent of the findings that no proceedings has to be initiated for cancelling the Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 Patta and the finding and allotment of 2 meter pathway to the petitioners and its demarcation and further proceedings.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to 3 to direct them to take necessary steps to cancel the Ext.P2 order and Ext.P3 patta by invoking Rule 8(3) or Rule 21(9) of Kerala Land Assignment Rules 1964.
iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to 6 to remove the obstructions made by the 7th respondent in the pathway which is covered under Ext.P2 and Ext.P3 and directs the respondent no.7 to restore the pathway in its original position by complying the direction in Ext.P24.
W.P.(C) No. 8088 of 2020 Declare that the respondents 7 to 12 have absolutely no right to question Exhibit P3 and that the first 2025:KER:67294 W.A No.2166 of 2025 and conctd. Case 8 respondent is also not entitled to revoke or cancel the same as claimed by them in Exhibit P12.
Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of the nature of certiorari quashing Exhibit P12 as grossly illegal and wrong.
2. WP(C) No.27942 of 2019 filed by the appellant has been dismissed whereas the W.P.(C) No. 8088 of 2020 filed by the Church has been allowed. It is in that background, two intra court appeals have been preferred.
3. Succinctly, the facts in brief for adjudication of the controversy are as under:
4. In the year 18.9.1985, the property to the extent of 62.125 cents in Sy.No.390/1 and 428/1 of Karumalloor Village in Paravur Taluk, originally a puramboke (Government land) was assigned by the Government in favour of the Our lady of Dollar's Church ie., the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 8088 of 2020 stated to have been established in the year 1891 AD and had been in possession/enjoyment of an extent of 1.5 acres of property comprised in various survey numbers situated in Karumalloor Village. The ingress and egress to the property was from a Panchayat road through a puramboke land and was being used by the devotees from time immemorial. Noticing that the property was under their occupation and 2025:KER:67294 W.A No.2166 of 2025 and conctd. Case 9 use, an application was submitted for its assignment. Accordingly, by order dated 18.09.1985, Ext.P3 was issued, assigning an extent of 62.125 cents of land in favour of the church for the construction of a pathway. Accordingly, a patta on 3.6.1994, Ext.P4 was issued in respect of the Church. However the petitioners in other writ petition ie., WP(C) No.27942 of 2019 and respondents in W.P.(C) No. 8088 of 2020 approached the Church claiming absolute right over the pathway giving them a cause to file a civil suit No.457 of 2017 before the Munsiff's Court, North Paravur and interim injunction was issued. However the said order stood modified later vide order dated 11.4.2019, permitting the party respondents to use the pathway till disposal of the suit. The respondents in W.P(C) No. 8088 of 2020 and the petitioners in the other writ petition, WP(C) No.27942 of 2019 have approached before the Additional District Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained an order in their favour which was stayed by this Court in Crl.R.P No.939 of 2017.
5. For the first time, the appellants who were the petitioners in WP(C) No.27942 of 2019 and respondents in 2025:KER:67294 W.A No.2166 of 2025 and conctd. Case 10 W.P.(C) No. 8088 of 2020 submitted an application dated 29.8.2017 to the Revenue Secretary for cancellation of the patta issued in favour of the Church on the ground that the violations had been committed to the terms and conditions of the patta but without giving any reference. In the meantime, the District Collector sought to resolve the disputes and in the meeting held on 19.12.2017, directed the Tahsildar to measure and demarcate the land assigned to the Church with a directions to the parties to maintain status quo till the survey was completed. The said order was assailed by the Church in WP(C) No.1820 of 2018. This Court vide judgment dated 2.4.2019 directed the Government to consider the application after hearing the Church also.
6. The Government vide order dated 27.7.2019 issued the following directions:
In the light of the afore directions, the Government issued an order dated 27.07.2019, finding that:
(i) The property concerned was assigned to the Church for the purpose of construction of the pathway and the Church has constructed a Kurishadi and an arch and also laid tiles in the pathway, which is a violation of the patta conditions.
(ii) Even on the face of the afore, no steps are taken for cancelling the patta at present since the land is assigned for the purpose of a pathway to the Church.
2025:KER:67294 W.A No.2166 of 2025 and conctd. Case 11
(iii) The land of the Church, the land covered by the patta and the land of the complainants are to be surveyed, and the pathway to the properties of the complainants are to be demarcated.
7. It was the said order which was assailed by the Church in W.P.(C) No.8088 of 2020 by arraying as Ext.P12 and the same very order was assailed by the present appellants as Ext.P24 in WP.(C) No.27942 of 2019. The contention of the appellant in both writ petitions was that the learned Single Judge, while noticing the rival contentions, failed to take into account certain observations recorded in the order dated 27.7.2019, marked as Ext.P12 in W.P.(C) No.8088 of 2020 and as Ext.P24 in the other writ petition whereby the interest of the users of the pathway and in view of the status quo order passed earlier was not kept intact much less the patta conditions were also violated and therefore the patta was required to be cancelled with a permission to use the passage to all ie., the appellants as well as the church. The assignment was illegal in favour of the church much less issuance of the patta. The patta in question was though issued on 3.6.1994 on the basis of the assignment order 18.9.1985. It is contended that the cause of action 2025:KER:67294 W.A No.2166 of 2025 and conctd. Case 12 arose only in 2017, when the easementary right of the appellant was affected by the church.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.
9. Rule 24 of Kerala Land Assignment Rules envisages that the land can be allotted by the Government only in case it is for public interest and but not to the individual. In the instant case, the allotment/assignment by the Government in the order of 1985 was not for a private interest but assigned to a church which would fall within the expression 'public interest' at a rate of Rs.750/- per cent. In support of the contentions, relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench in Varkey Abraham v. Secretary to Government (Revenue Department) and Others (2007 (3) KLT 702) to submit that assignment of a land to a family would not be falling within the public interest. In the aforementioned judgment, it was held that the Government/puramboke land cannot be assigned to an individual or an entity if the assignment is not relatable to the public interest, in other words, private interest cannot be related to public interest. In the instant case, the assignment way back in 1994, which 2025:KER:67294 W.A No.2166 of 2025 and conctd. Case 13 was never challenged till the institution of the writ petition in 2019, has been found by the Single Bench to be in public interest. For the reason that, at the time of issuance of assessment, a notice dated 9.1.1984 under Rule 12(1) of the Kerala Assignment Rules was issued to the affected parties before issuing the order of 1985.
10. There was no objection from any quarters with regard to the proposed assignment. Even the Tahsildar, Paravoor had also submitted a report dated 28.6.1984 finding that the property in question is primarily used for the entrance of the church. All the orders of assignment and patta issued in 1985 and 1994 remained intact, but were challenged only in 2017 at the instance of the appellant. There is no evidence on record regarding the demarcation of the pathway said to be misused or encroached by the Church, much less as to the distance of the alleged plot of the appellant vis-à-vis the pathway. The disputed question of fact, as rightly pointed out by the Single Bench in paragraph 17 of the judgment, cannot be adjudicated while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If so aggrieved, the parties are at 2025:KER:67294 W.A No.2166 of 2025 and conctd. Case 14 liberty to seek redressal of their grievances before a competent court of law. It is also a matter of record that at the time when the patta was issued, the Capella ie., the Cross was also existing as per the report of the Tahsildar dated 28.6.1984. Thus there was no violation of pathway giving a cause to the appellant to seek the cancellation of the patta on the ground of violation of the conditions.
11. As an upshot of findings, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order under challenge. No ground for interference is made out. Both the writ appeals are dismissed.
SD/-
AMIT RAWAL JUDGE SD/-
sab P. V. BALAKRISHNAN
JUDGE