Rangorath Gokul Prasad v. District Collector, Palakkad and Appellate Authority, Land Reforms, Thrissur

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN** ## **FRIDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2014/11TH MAGHA, 1935** ## **WP(C).No. 1451 of 2014 (F)** **-------------------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **-----------------------** **RANGORATH GOKUL PRASAD, AGED 47 YEARS S/O./ LATE GOPINATHAN, RESIDING AT 13/393-C, CHEMMARIKAT APARTMENTS, KALLIPPADAM POST, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679 122.** **BY ADVS.SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** **--------------------------** **1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD - 678 001.** ## **2. APPELLATE AUTHORITY,** **LAND REFORMS, COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680003.** **BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITA RAVINDRAN** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-01-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **PJ** ## **WP(C).No. 1451 of 2014 (F)** ## **-------------------------------------** ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------** **EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE NO.664/1978 DATED 23-12-1977 IN S.M.C. NO.9369/1977 ISSUED BY LAND TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM-I.** **EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23-12-1977 IN S.M.NO9369/1977 ISSUED BY LAND TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM.** - **EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 1-1-2014 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT AGAINST EXHIBITS P1 AND P2** **EXT.P3(A) - TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 1-1-2014 FILED IN SUPPORT OF EXT.P3 APPEAL.** **EXT.P3(B) - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 1-1-2014 SEEKING LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL** **EXT.P3(C) - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND TO ACCEPT THE APPEAL AND CONSIDER THE SAME AS WITHIN TIME AND DATED 1-1-2014** **EXT.P3(D) - TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO RECEIVE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED ALONG WITH THE APPEAL AND DATED 1-1-2014.** **EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 1-1-2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXT.P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.LRG8/2014/859/9 DATED 13-1-2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** ## **RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS** **---------------------------------------** ## **NIL.** **/ TRUE COPY /** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **PJ** ## **“C.R”** ## **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.** **----------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.1451 of 2014 ----------------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of January, 2014** ## **JUDGMENT** Ext.P5 letter sent by the District Collector, Palakkad, to the petitioner, informing him of the rejection of his application for the issue of a certified copy of the order passed by Land Tribunal-I, Ottapalam in S.M.No.9369 of 1977 and related papers on the ground that copies can be issued only to the parties to the proceedings or to persons who are claiming under them, is under challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner applied for and obtained a copy of the order passed by Land Tribunal-I, Ottapalam in S.M.No.9369 of 1977 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. He thereafter filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur and produced along with it the copy of the order passed in S.M.No.9369 of 1977 that was obtained by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Appellate Authority was not inclined to accept the appeal on the ground that the copy of the order W.P(C)No.1451/2014 -:2:- produced by the petitioner (the copy issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005) is not a certified copy. The petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P4 application dated 1.1.2014 before the Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) Palakkad. In that application he prayed for the issue of certified copies of the documents referred to therein. Photostat copies of documents which had already been issued to him under the Right to Information Act, 2005 were also enclosed and it was mentioned in Ext.P4 that certified copies are applied for so as to enable him to submit them before the Appellate Authority (Land Reforms), Thrissur. It appears that the Deputy Collector forwarded Ext.P4 application to the District Collector, who in turn rejected it and communicated the decision to the petitioner by Ext.P5 letter dated 13.1.2014. The District Collector took the stand that though the files in S.M.No.9369 of 1977 are available, certified copies can be issued only to parties to the proceedings or to persons claiming under them and therefore, the petitioner's application cannot be granted. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P5 letter and prays for an order directing the first respondent to issue certified copies of the documents as sought in Ext.P4 application. W.P(C)No.1451/2014 -:3:- 3. Section 102 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act stipulates that the Government or any person aggrieved by an order of the Land Tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 12, sub-section (3) of section 13A, section 22, section 23, sub-section (2) of section 26) where the amount of arrears of rent claimed exceeds five hundred rupees), section 31, section 47, sub-section (3) or subsection (4) of section 48, sub-section (3) of section 49, subsection (6) of section 52, section 57, sub-section (5) of section 66, section 72F, section 73, sub-section (2) of section 77, section 80B, sub-section (4) of section 90, section 106 or section 106A, may appeal against such order within such time as may be prescribed, to the appellate authority. In the instant case, the order is one issued under section 72-C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Ext.P2 is a copy thereof, issued to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005. A learned single Judge of this Court has in _**Bhaskaran v. Aisabi**_ , 1987 (2) KLT 213, held that an order disposing of a suo motu proceedings under section 72-C of the Kerala Land Reforms Act is also an order that falls under section 72-F of the Act and that it is an appealable order. A learned single Judge of this Court has in _**Govinda Pillai v.**_ W.P(C)No.1451/2014 -:4:- _**Madhavan Pillai,**_ 1988 (2) KLT 522 held interpreting section 102 (1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, that the plain and unambiguous language employed in sub-section (1) of section 102 of the Act makes it clear that the legislature intended that a person even if he is not a party to the proceeding but nevertheless aggrieved by an order passed by the authority under any of the provisions made mention of in sub-section (1) of section 102, has the right to file an appeal against the said order. The petitioner has averred that as a devotee of Ongallur Thaliyil Ganapathi Temple he has the locus standi to protect and safeguard properties of the religious institution from wrongful claims or from being misappropriated. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in _**Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board**_ , (ILR 2007 (4) Kerala 181) in support of the said contention. 4. Rule 122 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1970 which deals with the issue of certified copies of any proceeding or document filed in the Land Tribunal or in the custody of the Land Tribunal or Appellate Authority does not stipulate that only parties to proceedings can apply for a certified W.P(C)No.1451/2014 -:5:- copy. The words used in rule 122 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules are “any person entitled to obtain” and unlike in rule 240 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice, it is not stipulated that application for copies of records by persons who are not parties to the suit or proceedings shall be allowed only by order of the Judge obtained on a duly verified petition setting forth the purpose for which the copy is required. Even in rule 240 of the Kerala Civil Rules of Practice, it is stated that copies of judgments can be granted to all persons prepared to pay the prescribed fees for the supply of such copies. Copies of records can also be issued, but after orders are passed on the judicial side. In the absence of any stipulation in rule 122 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules to the effect that copies of records will not be issued to persons who are not parties to the proceedings or will be issued only by an order of the Land Tribunal and in view of the fact that the petitioner is entitled under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to obtain copies of the order passed by the Land Tribunal and other records, I am of the opinion that the stand taken by the District Collector in Ext.P5 cannot be sustained. I accordingly allow the writ petition, set aside Ext.P5 and W.P(C)No.1451/2014 -:6:- direct the District Collector, Palakkad to issue the certified copies applied for in Ext.P4 application, expeditiously and in any event within two weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before him. **P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge.** ## **ahg.** **P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------W.P.(C).No.1451 of 2014 ----------------------------** ## **JUDGMENT** **31[st] January, 2014**