High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2019-11-28Writ Petition disposed with directions as state...

Mathu Madhavan and others v. Tahsildar Sulthan Bathery and Administrative Officer Ambalavayal, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad, and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C).No.24569 OF 2013(U)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
Judgment Date: 2019-11-28
Court Decision / Holding: I. The 1st respondent Tahasildar shall issue a fresh notice to the petitioners 2 to 6 indicating clearly why their presence together with the original of the pattayam issued to Kochamkode Madhavan is required by him and the enquiry in connection with which their presence or the document referred above is required. II. He shall then offer sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to submit their objections, if any, to the proposals so indicated to them. III. He shall thereafter proceed to decide the issue after hearing both the petitioners as well as additional respondents 5 to 11. The orders passed by the 1st respondent shall contain reasons. IV. All legal contentions available to the petitioners including any contention with regard to the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to make enquires as also on limitation are left open to be considered by the 1st respondent at the time of hearing. V. The 1st respondent shall complete the aforesaid exercise within an outer time limit of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed as above.
Final Disposition: Writ Petition disposed with directions as stated above.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Mathu Madhavan
Govindan
Balan
Kumaran
Chuppukan
Hari Rajan

Respondents

The Tahsildar, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad - 673 592
The Administrative Officer, Ambalavayal, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad - 673 593
Narayanan (Additional Respondent 3)
Nani (Additional Respondent 4)
Paru (Additional Respondent 5)
Sankaran (Additional Respondent 6)
Kesavan (Additional Respondent 7)
Damodaran (Additional Respondent 8)
Padmini (Additional Respondent 9)
Rajan (Additional Respondent 10)
Chandran (Additional Respondent 11)

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri M.P. Ashok Kumar
• Sri P.C. Gopinath

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K. V. Prakash (Government Pleader)
• Sri K.N. Abhilash
• Sri Aneesh Joseph
• Sri Sunil Nair Palakkat

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, six individuals belonging to the Kuruma community (a Scheduled Tribe in Wayanad), challenge Ext.P4, a notice directing production of the original pattayam issued on 30.11.1973 to Kochamkode Madhavan S/o Naikkan Mooppan, following a finding of colonist status in 1948. They had approached the High Court for an interim stay of proceedings before the Tahasildar, arguing that the original pattayam was not in their possession and that the grounds for requiring the document were not stated. During hearing, the court noted the petitioners had produced the pattayam dated 30.11.1973, and it appeared that the petitioners could participate in the enquiry to determine inter se claims with Additional Respondents 5–11. The court disposed the petition with directions, including: (i) the Tahasildar shall issue a fresh notice to petitioners 2–6 requesting why their presence and the original pattayam are required and for what purpose; (ii) give petitioners an opportunity to submit objections; (iii) decide after hearing petitioners and additional respondents 5–11 with reasons; (iv) preserve all contentions on jurisdiction and limitation for consideration at hearing; (v) complete the enquiry within six months from receipt of the judgment. The petition is thus disposed with structured procedural safeguards to enable a fair enquiry while preserving rights and defenses of all parties.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that Ext.P4, directing the production of the original pattayam issued to Kochamkode Madhavan in 1973, was issued without stating the reasons for requiring the document and without furnishing a show cause. They submit that they do not possess the original pattayam and seek stay of further proceedings, contending that the enquiry should be properly framed, with fair opportunity to object, and that jurisdiction and limitation issues be kept open for consideration. After the Pattayam was produced during hearing, they urge that the Tahasildar be directed to issue a fresh notice outlining the necessity of the pattayam and to hear the petitioners and other respondents.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argue that the original pattayam is essential for the enquiry to determine inter se rights among the petitioners and the other respondents, and that an informed inquiry requires production of original documents. They contend that Ext.P4 was issued to initiate a lawful enquiry into colonist status and property interests, and that due process necessitates testing the authenticity of documents in the possession of petitioners and respondents alike. They seek to uphold the enquiry process and rely on prior orders and records to justify the need for original documents.

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 Mathu Madhavan and others v. Tahsildar Sulthan Bathery and Administrative Officer Ambalavayal, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad, and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.24569 OF 2013(U)** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 MATHU MADHAVAN W/O.LATE MADHAVAN, KOCHAMKOD HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL P.O, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD.** - **2 GOVINDAN S/O.LATE MADHAVAN, KOCHAMKOD HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL P.O, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD.** - **3 BALAN S/O.LATE MADHAVAN, KOCHAMKOD HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL P.O,SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD.** - **4 KUMARAN S/O.LATE MADHAVAN, KOCHAMKOD HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL P.OSULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD.** - **5 CHUPPUKKAN S/O.LATE MADHAVAN, KOCHAMKOD HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL P.O, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD.** - **6 HARI RAJAN S/O.LATE MADHAVAN, KOCHAMKOD HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL P.O, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD. BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR SRI.P.C.GOPINATH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** - **1 THE TAHSILDAR SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 592** - **2 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AMBALAVAYAL, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 593.** - *** ADDL.R3 AND R4 IMPLADED: 3 NARAYANAN, AGED 77 YEARS S/O.LATE KURUBA NAIKAN, KOCHANKODE HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 593.** |**4**|**NANI**| |---|---| ||**D/O.LATE KURUMBA NAIKAN, KOCHANKODE HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL**| ||**P.O., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 593.**| 2 **WP(C).No.24569 OF 2013(U)** - **** ADDL.R5 TO R11 IMPLADED:** - **5 PARU, AGED 70 YEARS** **W/O.LATE NARAYANAN, KOCHANKODE HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL PO., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 593.** - **6 SANKARAN AGED 55 YEARS** **S/O.LATE NARAYANAN, KOCHANKODE HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL PO., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 593.** - **7 KESAVAN AGED 55 YEARS** - **S/O.LATE NARAYANAN, KOCHANKODE HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL PO., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 593.** - **8 DAMODARAN AGED 52 YEARS S/O.LATE NARAYANAN, KOCHANKODE HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL PO., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 593.** - **9 PADMINI AGED 50 YEARS** **D/O.LATE NARAYANAN, KOCHANKODE HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL PO., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 593.** - **10 RAJAN AGED 45 YEARS S/O.LATE NARAYANAN, KOCHANKODE HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL PO., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 593.** - **11 CHANDRAN AGED 43 YEARS S/O.LATE NARAYANAN, KOCHANKODE HOUSE, AMBALAVAYAL PO., SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD - 673 593.** **(*ADDITIONAL R3 AND R4 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DATED 11.12.2013 IN I.A.NO.16753 OF 2013)** **(**ADDL.R5 TO R11 ARE IMPLADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03.07.2015 IN I.A.NO.8536 OF 2015)** **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K. V. PRAKASH R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.ABHILASH R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH R1 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 3 **WP(C).No.24569 OF 2013(U)** ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners, who are stated to be belonging to the kuruma community, which is a Scheduled Tribe in Wayanad District, have approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P4 notice that was served on them asking them to produce the original of the pattayam that was granted in 30.11.1973 to Kochamkode Madhavan S/o.Naikkan Mooppan pursuant to a finding that he was a colonist in 1948. A perusal of the said notice indicates that the same was issued to the petitioners taking note of the stand of the petitioner at that point in time, that they did not have the original of the pattayam issued to the said Kochamkode Madhavan. It was faced with this predicament of having to appear before the 1[st] respondent Tahasildar, in the absence of the original of the pattayam, that the petitioners approached this Court seeking to interdict the 1[st] respondent from proceeding further in the matter. When the matter came up for admission before this Court on 08.10.2013, this Court, while admitting the Writ Petition, also granted an interim stay of further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 notice issued by the 1[st] respondent. The said stay order has been extended from time to time and continues to be in force even 4 **WP(C).No.24569 OF 2013(U)** today. As a result, the proceedings that were initiated through Ext.P4 notice are still pending before the 1[st] respondent. 2. During the course of hearing of this Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners has produced before me a document stated to be the original of the pattayam that was issued to Kochamkode Madhavan, which is dated 30.11.1973. In view of this subsequent development, I am of the view that the petitioners can now produce the said document before the 1[st] respondent Tahasildar in connection with the enquiry that was proposed by the said respondent to determine the inter se claims of the petitioners and the additional respondents 5 to 11. I take note of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in Ext.P4 notice, he has not been informed of the reasons as to why the original of the pattayam issued to Kochamkode Madhavan was necessary and the proceedings in connection with which it was sought, and hence, it is the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 1[st] respondent also be directed to issue a formal show cause notice to the petitioners in connection with the enquiry that is proposed by the said respondents. I find force in the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, and taking note of the document now produced before me 5 **WP(C).No.24569 OF 2013(U)** by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I dispose this Writ Petition with the following directions: I. The 1[st] respondent Tahasildar shall issue a fresh notice to the petitioners 2 to 6 indicating clearly why their presence together with the original of the pattayam issued to Kochamkode Madhavan is required by him and the enquiry in connection with which their presence or the document referred above is required. ii. He shall then offer sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to submit their objections, if any, to the proposals so indicated to them. iii. He shall thereafter proceed to decide the issue after hearing both the petitioners as also additional respondents 5 to 11. The orders passed by the 1[st] respondent shall contain reasons. iv. All legal contentions available to the petitioners including any contention with regard to the jurisdiction of the 1[st] respondent to make enquires as also on limitation are left open to be considered by the 1[st] respondent at the time of hearing. v. The 1[st] respondent shall complete the aforesaid exercise within an outer time limit of 6 months from the 6 **WP(C).No.24569 OF 2013(U)** date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed as above. Sd/- **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** mns 7 **WP(C).No.24569 OF 2013(U)** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** |**EXHIBIT P1**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE PATTAYAM NUMBER WCS 1724/73**| |---|---| ||**DATED 30.11.1973**| |**EXHIBIT P2**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.2.2013**| |**EXHIBIT P3**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.2.2013**| |**EXHIBIT P4**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.9.2013**| |**EXHIBIT P6**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3263/60 DATED**| ||**21.12.1960**| |**EXHIBIT P7**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27.,11.1973**| ||**SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF ASSIGNMENT CHARGES**| |**EXHIBIT P8**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF**| ||**REGISTRATION OF REGISTERED OWNER**| ||**NO.R.C.NO.289/78/SW DATED 24.02.1978**| |**EXHIBIT P9**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2555/99 DATED**| ||**1.06.1999**| |**EXHIBIT P10**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2556/99 DATED**| ||**21.05.1999**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**PHOTOCOPY OF THE FABRICATED DOCUMENT**| ||**MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL**| ||**DY.TAHASILDAR,AMBALAVAYAL DATED 23.11.1973**| ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT R3(A): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN WCS 1724 OF 1973 OF SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, AMBALAVAYAL** **EXHIBIT R3(B): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WCS 1724 OF 1973** **EXHIBIT R3(C): TRUE COPY OF THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DATED 20.05.1977** **EXHIBIT R3(D): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L-2/27311/11 DATED 11.2012 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR** 8 **WP(C).No.24569 OF 2013(U)** **EXHIBIT R11(A): TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, AMBALAVAYAL INDICATING THAT THE WRIT PETITIONERS PREDECESSORS INTEREST AND THE INTEREST OF THESE RESPONDENTS NO.3 AND 4 OF THIS WRIT PETITION AS OF LEGAL HEIRS OF KURUMA NAIK IS SHOWN PROCEEDINGS IN WCS 1724/1973** **EXHIBIT R11(B): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.11.1973 IN WCS.NO.1724/1973** **EXHIBIT R3(C): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DATED 20.05.1977** **EXHIBIT R11(D): TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DEPUTY COLLECTOR** **EXHIBIT R11(E): TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 31.10.1973 SUBMITTED BY THE SPECIAL DEPUTY TAHASILDAR,AMBALAVAYAL IN THE SAID PROCEEDINGS** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.A TO JUDGE**