# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`**
## **`PRESENT`**
```
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
```
```
FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944
```
## **`OP(C) NO. 1431 OF 2015`**
## **`A.A. NO. 102/2011 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR`**
## **`PETITIONER:`**
```
LATHA
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O.C.P.RAMACHANDRAN,THAZHATHVEETIL,PERINGOME AMSOM
DESOM,PERINGOME,KANNUR DISTRICT 670 307.
```
```
BY ADV SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE
```
## **`RESPONDENTS:`**
```
1M.V. KUNHIRAMAN
AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAPPA, RETD.DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
RESIDING AT K.P.NAGAR, PERINGOME AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR
DISTRICT 670 307.
```
```
2STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -1.
```
```
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.SASINDRAN
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. S.L SYLAJA
```
```
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.10.2022,
ALONG WITH OP(C).1433/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
```
```
OP(C) NOS. 1431 & 1433 OF 2015
```
```
2
```
# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT`**
```
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
```
```
FRIDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 15TH ASWINA, 1944
OP(C) NO. 1433 OF 2015
```
## **`A.A.No. 103/2011 OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY, KANNUR`**
## **`PETITIONER:`**
```
C.P.PRAKASAN
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE KADAYAKKARA DAMODARAN,
VAYAKKARA AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT.
```
```
BY ADV SRI.MATHEW KURIAKOSE
```
## **`RESPONDENTS:`**
```
1M.V.KUNHIRAMAN
AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAPPA, RETD. DISTRICT
REGISTRAR, RESIDING AT K.P.NAGAR, PERINGOME AMSOM
DESOM, KANNUR DISTRICT-670307.
```
```
2STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR-670002.
```
```
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.SASINDRAN
GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. S.L SYLAJA
```
```
THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.10.2022, ALONG WITH OP(C).1431/2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME
DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
```
```
3
```
## **Dated this the 7[th] day of October, 2022**
## **COMMON JUDGMENT**
Aggrieved by the common order passed in I.A No.314/2013 in A.A. No.103/2011 and I.A. No.315/2013 in A.A. No.102/2011 of the Appellate Authority (LR) Kannur, the supplemental respondents 5 and 6 in the appeals have filed the original petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The respondents in the original petitions are the appellant and the third respondent/State in the appeals. As the parties and the subject matter are the same, they are being disposed of by the common judgment.
2. The common case of the petitioners in the original petitions is that: they are the supplemental respondents 5 and 6 in the above appeals preferred by the first respondent, who was not a party in the suo-motu proceedings of the Land Tribunal, Payyannur. The property involved in the suo-motu proceedings originally belonged to Kuttoor Vengayil Kalyanikutty Amma, the
```
OP(C) NOS. 1431 & 1433 OF 2015
```
```
4
```
mother of the petitioner in O.P.(C)No.1431/2015 and Kadeakkara Damodaran, the father of the petitioner in O.P.(C)No.1433/2015. The purchase certificates were issued in favour of the above named persons as per S.M.Nos.263/2007 and 262/2007, respectively. They assigned the properties in favour of one Ramesan as per document No.377/2009 of the SRO, Peringom. The first respondent, who has no personal interest in the matter, claiming to be the protector of public land, preferred the above appeals. The District Collector, Kannur, filed counter statements in both the appeals, inter-alia, contending that the appeals are not maintainable. During the pendency of the appeals, the mother and the father of the petitioners died. The petitioners were impleaded as the supplemental respondents. The petitioners questioned the maintainability of the appeals by filing I.A. Nos.315 & 314 of 2013 in the appeals, respectively. The applications were objected by the first respondent. The appellate authority, by the impugned Ext.P5 common order,
## **`OP(C) NOS. 1431 & 1433 OF 2015`**
```
5
```
dismissed the above applications. Ext.P5 common order is erroneous and wrong. Hence, the original petitions.
3. The second respondent - State – has filed a statement dated 29.11.2017 through the District Collector, Kannur, inter alia, stating that the Vigilance and the Anti Corruption Bureau had conducted a Quick Verification Report regarding the accusation levelled by the first respondent against the revenue officials. The Vigilance Officer, after a detailed enquiry, has found the accusation to be correct. On the basis of the report, V.C. No.3/2014 has been registered against the Revenue Officials and few others for offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case is pending before the Vigilance Court, Kannur. It is only because the appeals have been stayed by this Court, the above facts have not been placed before the appellate authority. The second respondent may be permitted to place the materials before the appellate authority.
4. Heard; Sri.Mathew Kuriakose, the learned
```
OP(C) NOS. 1431 & 1433 OF 2015
```
```
6
```
counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the State.
5. The point is whether there is any error or illegality
in Ext.P5 order.
6. The grievance of the petitioners in the original petitions is that the first respondent has no locus standi to file the appeals before the appellate authority because he is a total stranger.
7. On an analysis of the pleadings and materials on record, it is seen that the first respondent has filed the appeals as a whistle blower, principally for the reason that he found there was a collusion between the petitioners and the revenue officials in issuing the purchase certificates in favour of the predecessor-ininterest of the petitioners.
8. The appellate authority by relying on the decision of this Court in **Thayyil Muhammed v. Koorimanni**
```
OP(C) NOS. 1431 & 1433 OF 2015
```
```
7
```
**Pattiyl Showkath Ali and Others** [2014(4) KLT 366] and **Vareed Jacob and Others v. E.A. Jayakumar and Others** [2010(3) KLT 389] concluded that the first respondent is competent to file the appeals because any aggrieved person can file an appeal against an order of the Land Tribunal as provided under Section 102 of the Land Reforms Act.
9. Now, in addition to the finding of the appellate authority, the statement filed by the second respondent makes it clearer than crystal, that the assertions made by the first respondent in the appeals is prima facie true and genuine. Even otherwise, it is trite, as held by this Court in the above cited precedents that any aggrieved person can file an appeal under Section 102 of the Act.
10. It is to be born in mind that the property is Government land. If it was not for the first respondent, perhaps the Government may have lost the above land. Despite the revelation made in the report of the Vigilance Officer the Government has not taken any effective steps
```
8
```
to get the purchase certificates set aside, I am of the view that the first respondent is to be permitted to prosecute the appeals and the Government be directed to change its stand before the appellate authority, in consonance with the statement filed before this Court. Furthermore, in view of the unearthing of a fraud, the Government shall take effective methods to protect the public property.
The revelations in the statement filed before this Court is a serious matter, which cannot be taken lightly by the Government any more. I do not find any error or infirmity in Ext.P5 common order warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I confirm Ext.P5 order and dismiss the original petitions. The Revenue Secretary, Government of Kerala is directed to take necessary action as directed above, as expeditiously as possible.
## **Sd/-**
## **C.S.DIAS, JUDGE**
rmm10/10/2022
```
OP(C) NOS. 1431 & 1433 OF 2015
```
```
9
```
## **`APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1433/2015`**
## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS`
EXHIBIT P1
```
TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN
A.A. NO.103/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE
APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR
```
EXHIBIT P2 `TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 6/12/2014 FILED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR IN A.A NO.103/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR`
EXHIBIT P3 `TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN IA NO.314/2013 IN A.A NO.103/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR`
EXHIBIT P4 `TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES OF ARGUMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE CONTESTING RESPONDENTS IN IA NO.314/2013 IN A.A NO.103/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR`
EXHIBIT P5 `TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 11/6/2015 IN IA NO.314/2013 IN A.A NO.103/2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR`
## **`OP(C) NOS. 1431 & 1433 OF 2015`**
## **`10`**
## **`APPENDIX OF OP(C) 1431/2015`**
```
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
```
```
EXHIBIT-P1
```
- `TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL IN A.A NO. 102 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR.`
- `EXHIBIT-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER STATEMENT DATED 06/12/2014 FILED BY THE DISTRICT`
- `COLLECTOR, KANNUR IN A.A NO. 102 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR), KANNUR.`
- `EXHIBIT-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN I.A 315 OF 2013 IN A.A 102 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR.`
- `EXHIBIT-P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTES OF ARGUMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE CONTESTING RESPONDENTS IN I.A 315 OF 2013 IN A.A NO. 10 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR.`
- `EXHIBIT-P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 11/06/2015 IN I.A 315 OF 2013 IN A.A NO. 102 OF 2011 ON THE FILES OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (LR) KANNUR.`
