High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2024-04-11Disposed of with directions.

Jacob Cherian Thomas and Johny Cherian Thomas v State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: P. V. Kunhikrishnan
Judgment Date: 2024-04-11
Court Decision / Holding: Writ petition disposed of with directions: the additional 9th respondent is directed to consider the issue after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 7th respondent, within four months from receipt of a certified copy of the judgment; the additional 9th respondent shall consider the matter in light of the Indira P.S. principle and shall decide untrammelled by Ext.P7; petitioners to produce certified copy of judgment and petition before the additional 9th respondent for compliance.
Final Disposition: Disposed of with directions.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Jacob Cherian Thomas
Johny Cherian Thomas

Respondents

State of Kerala represented by its Secretary to the Department of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
Land Revenue Commission, Thiruvananthapuram
The District Collector, Kottayam
The Revenue Divisional Officer
Tahsildar Meenachil
Village Officer Kidangoor
Philomina Joseph Kalekkattill House, Kummanoor, Kidangoor Village, Kottayam District
ADDl.R8 Local Level Monitoring Committee Kidangoor Grama Panchayat, Kottayam District represented by its Convener Agricultural Officer, Kidangoor, Kottayam District
ADDl.R9 Tahsildar (LR), Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Saju J Panicker
• Kuriakose (K Jose)

Counsels for Respondents

• Liji J. Vadakedom
• Saju J Panicker

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, two owners of property in Meenachil taluk, challenge corrections to revenue records based on Ext.P7 and Ext.P6, alleging the property is garden land as per Ext.P1–P4 and tax records, with trees of considerable age. They contend Ext.P7 (29.03.2013) shows the property as nilam in the settlement register and as purayidam in resurvey, a change they claim is erroneous and that Ext.P6 followed without any prior notice or hearing. They seek certiorari to quash Exts.P6 and P7 and mandamus to restrain any corrections to the resurvey or revenue records of their property. The State and revenue authorities defend the process, with the Government Pleader arguing the matter should be considered by the additional 9th respondent. The Court observes that Ext.P7 is an internal communication between the Revenue Divisional Officer and the additional Tahsildar, and that the petitioners’ challenge arises from a lack of notice and hearing. The court places reliance on the principle laid down in Indira P.S. and others v. Sub-Collector, Fort Kochi and anr. (2020 (4) KHC 33), directing that the issue be examined by the additional 9th respondent after due process. The judgment ultimately disposes of the petition by remitting the matter for fresh decision, permitting hearing, and requiring adherence to due process, untrammelled by Ext.P7.”

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners argued that Ext.P7 is an internal communication and that Ext.P6 was issued without notice or opportunity of hearing, affecting the status of their garden land described in Ext.P1 and basic tax records (Ext.P2). They asserted the property is garden land with aged trees and that the resurvey and settlement entries (nilam and purayidam) are mistakes that require correction with due process. They relied on the Kerala High Court decision in Indira P.S. and others v. Sub-Collector (supra) to contend for annulment of the impugned orders unless proper hearing is afforded.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that Ext.P7 is an internal communication and that the matter falls within routine corrections in resurvey records; the appropriate authority (additional 9th respondent) should examine the issue afresh in accordance with law after giving due hearing. The State urged considering the Indira P.S. principle but emphasized the need for proper procedure, which would be satisfied by hearing before taking final action.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Indira P.S. and others v. Sub-Collector, Fort Kochi and anr.	2020 (4) KHC 33	Positive	Court relies on the Indira P.S. decision to emphasize due process and to mandate hearing before final corrective action, guiding the Additional 9th respondent’s approach.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Jacob Cherian Thomas and Johny Cherian Thomas v State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN** **THURSDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946** **WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017** ## **PETITIONER/S:** - **1 JACOB CHERIAN THOMAS AGED 50 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, AGED 50 YEARS,MARUTHOOKUNNEL HOUSE, MARIDOM KARA,KADAPLAMATTOM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT** - **2 JOHNY CHERIAN THOMAS JOHNY C THOMAS AGED 43 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, AGED 43 YEARS, MARUTHOOKUNNEL HOUSE, MARIDOM KARA,KADAPLAMATTOM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT** **BY ADVS. SAJU J PANICKER KURIAN K JOSE(K/001510/2019)** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** - **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **2 LAND REVENUE COMMISSION THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM** - **4 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER** WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 2 ## **PALA** - **5 TAHSILDAR MEENACHIL** - **6 VILLAGE OFFICER KIDANGOOR** - **7 PHILOMINA JOSEPH KALEKKATTIL HOUSE, KUMMANOOR,KIDANGOOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT** **ADDL.R8 LOCAL LEVEL MONITORING COMMITTEE KIDANGOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRRESENTED BY ITS CONVENER AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.(IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.06.2017 IN IA 9213/17)** - **ADDL.R9 TAHSILDAR (LR), MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM (IS IMPLEADED IN THIS WRIT PETITION AS PER ORDER DATED 11.04.2024)** **BY ADVS. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM SAJU J PANICKER** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 3 # **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J** **--------------------------------------W.P.(C.) No. 19367 of 2017 -------------------------------------Dated this the 11[th] day of April, 2024** ## **JUDGMENT** ## The above writ petition is filed with following prayers : (i) “To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to call for all records leading up to Ext.P7 and quash Exts.P6 and P7. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents restraining them from making any corrections in the resurvey or revenue records as to the nature of the properties of the petitioners covered by Ext.P1, based on Exts.P6 and P7. (iii) To grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of the petitioners.” [sic] 2. The petitioners are the owners of the properties covered by Ext.P1 is the submission, which according to them is a garden land. It is submitted that in the survey records and WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 4 revenue records including Ext.P2 basic tax register, it is shown as 'garden land'. It is submitted that based on a petition filed by the 7[th] respondent, the 4[th] respondent issued Ext.P7 finding that as per the settlement register, the property is shown as nilam and as per re-survey, it is categorized as 'purayidam', which is a mistake and directed the same to be corrected. Pursuant to Ext.P7, the 2[nd] respondent issued Ext.P6. According to the petitioners, Exts.P6 and P7 are issued without any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is further submitted that Exts.P2 to P4 would show that the property in question is a garden land and there are trees having considerable age standing in the property. When there was an attempt to implement Ext.P7, this writ petition is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader. I also heard the learned counsel appearing for the 7[th] respondent. 4. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the light of the decision of this Court in **Indira P.S. and others v.** WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 5 **Sub-Collector, Fort Kochi and anr.** [2020 (4) KHC 33], the impugned orders are to be set aside. The Government Pleader submitted that the matter is to be considered by the additional 9[th] respondent. 5. This Court perused Ext.P7. It is true that there is some finding in Ext.P7 against the contention of the petitioners. But, Ext.P7 is only an internal communication between the Revenue Divisional Officer and additional Tahsildar. Untrammelled by the same, the additional 9[th] respondent can consider the issue and decide the matter, in accordance with law, in the light of the principle laid down by this Court in **Indira P.S.'s** case (supra). Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: 1) The additional 9[th] respondent is directed to consider the issue after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and the 7[th] respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 6 receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. - 2) While deciding the matter, the additional 9[th] respondent will consider the dictum laid down by this Court in **Indira** - **P.S. and others v. Sub-Collector, Fort Kochi and anr.** [2020 (4) KHC 33]. - 3) I make it clear that the additional 9[th] respondent shall consider the matter untrammelled by any direction in Ext.P7 order. - 4) The petitioners will produce a certified copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the additional 9[th] respondent for compliance. ## **Sd/-** **P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE** SKS WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 7 ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19367/2017** ## **PETITIONER EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF PARTITION DEED NO. 1154/09** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 18.12.2015 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23.02.2016 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 19.03.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04.10.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 29.03.2013 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPIES OF LETTER DATED 26.04.2017 WITH PORTIONS OF SETTLEMENT REGISTER** **RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R7(A) THE COPY OF THE SURVEY SETTLEMENT REGISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS (SURVEY NO. 297/5). Exhibit R7(B) THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO. 1770/1955 OF THE SRO, ETTUMANOOR ALONG** WP(C) NO. 19367 OF 2017 8 ## **WITH THE TYPED COPY OF THE SAME.** ## **Exhibit R7(C)** **Exhibit R7(D)** **Exhibit R7(E)** **Exhibit R7(F)** **Exhibit R7(G)** **Exhibit R7(H)** **THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. L.R. A415852/12/LDIS. DATED 4.10.2012 ISSUED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER TO THIS RESPONDENT INTIMATING THAT THE RDO HAS DIRECTED THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE THAT OCCURRED IN PREPARING THE RESURVEY RECORDS.** **THE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF THE TAX BY RESPONDENT NO. 7.** **THE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION DATED 11.11.2014 SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT ALONG WITH THE OTHER NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY OWNERS BEFORE THE RDO, PALA.** **THE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 12.5.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KIDANGOOR TO THE TALUK OFFICER, MEENACHIL.** **THE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 9.6.2022 SUBMITTED BY THIS RESPONDENT BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR (LR), MEENACHIL.** **THE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 2.7.2022 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KIDANGOOR TO THE TAHSILDAR (LR).**