Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDismissed

State of Kerala represented by the District Collector, Kollam and others v Jumaila Beevi

Case / Petition Number:OP(C) NO. 511 OF 2021

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • V.G. Arun
Judgment Date
2021-10-11
Court Decision / Holding
The Original Petition is dismissed for the aforementioned reasons.
Final Disposition
Dismissed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • State of Kerala represented by the District Collector Kollam
  • Director of Survey and Land Records, Central Survey Office, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Assistant Director of Survey and Land Records (Resurvey), Kollam
  • Superintendent of Survey, Survey Superintendent Office, Kollam
  • Village Officer, Perinad Village Office, Perinad

Respondents

  • Jumaila Beevi

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • S. Unnikrishnan

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Shaji Chirayath
  • • Smt. Jiji M. Varkey
  • • Sri M.M. Shajahan
  • • Smt. Bhoomika Sajan

Case Synopsis & Summary

This original petition arises from OS 929/2008, filed by Jumaila Beevi against government land records and for correction of resurvey entries. The State contends plaint ‘C’ schedule land is Government property and the purpose of the suit is to defeat the State’s title. The suit was decreed ex parte in 2009 due to non-representation of the State’s officer. After about 752 days, petitions to set aside the ex parte decree were filed, along with delay condonation applications, all of which were dismissed for non-representation or failure to act. Thereafter, the petitioners sought restoration of those orders, filing another round with a long delay, followed by CMA Nos. 25 and 26/2019 with a total delay of about 1007 days; these were rejected, and the appeals were dismissed. The petition under OP(C) 511/2021 seeks to set aside the judgment and permit contest on merits. The Government Pleader urged a liberal approach to condonation of delay, invoking Lipok Ao and Mandal Revenue Officer. The respondent counsel argued casual handling of the suit and that delay cannot be condoned without substantial reasons. After hearing, the court declined to interfere, emphasizing accountability for officials and holding that liberal condonation is not, by itself, a justification for allowing the original petition. The petition is dismissed; there is no relief to the petitioners, and the State must address responsibility for the delay.

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Liberal approach to condonation of delay
  • Public interest considerations in delay condonation
  • State responsibility to fix erring officials

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that the matter affects public interest and that a liberal approach to condonation of delay must be adopted when the State is a party. It cites State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao and Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah to justify leniency in condonation of delay. The petition argues that ex parte decree obtained in OS 929/2008 undermines public administration and land records, and that restoration and delay-condonation petitions were pursued to avoid injustice. It emphasizes that the suit should be decided on its merits to protect public revenue and land-title records. The Government pleader asserts that the courts must not permit procedural delays to defeat substantive rights and that accountability for delays by officials must be addressed by the State.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent's counsel contends that the petition is filed with casualness and without sufficient reason, reflecting lack of interest. It argues that delay cannot be condoned simply because the State is a party, and that the court should maintain strict adherence to the rule of law. It asserts that repeated attempts to restore or condone delay were inadequately supported by explanations and that public interest cannot justify procedural laxity that prejudices the respondent's rights. The court should not interfere with the trial court's orders and should require the State to fix responsibility for the erring officials.

Cited Precedents (2)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao and others[(2005) 3 SCC 752]Mentioned OnlyCited by the Government Pleader to support liberal condonation; court did not adopt liberal relief based on this authority in the present case.
Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah and another[(2010) 2 SCC 461]Mentioned OnlyCited for the argument on liberal condonation; court did not follow as a blanket license for delay.

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 State of Kerala represented by the District Collector, Kollam and others v Jumaila Beevi 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 V.G.ARUN`** ``` MONDAY, THE 11[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 19TH ASWINA, 1943 ``` ## **`OP(C) NO. 511 OF 2021`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 929/2008 OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** - **`1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.`** - **`2 DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, CENTRAL SURVEY OFFICE, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.`** - **`3 ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS (RESURVEY),KOLLAM.`** - **`4 SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM.`** - **`5 VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINAD VILLAGE OFFICE, PERINAD.`** ``` BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER,SRI. S.UNNIKRISHNAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` JUMAILA BEEVI AGED 62 YEARS, D/O. KOYAKUTTY, THAZHEVILA VEEDU, KERALA PURAM, EDAVATTATHU CHERRY, PERINAD VILLAGE,KOLLAM. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SRI.SHAJI CHIRAYATH SMT.JIJI M. VARKEY SRI.M.M.SHAJAHAN SMT.BHOOMIKA SAJAN ``` ``` 2 ``` ## **`OP(C) NO. 511 OF 2021`** ``` THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` OP(C) NO. 511 OF 2021 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **`JUDGMENT`** This original petition is a classic example of the casual and indifferent manner in which certain officials are conducting cases in which the State Government is a party. 2. The short facts are that, O.S.No.929/2008 on the files of the II[nd] Additional District Court, Kollam was filed by the respondent seeking a declaration with respect to plaint ‘C’ schedule property and for a direction to correct errors in the re-survey records. The State’s contention is that plaint ‘C’ schedule is Government land and the attempt of the respondent is to secure title over that land. The suit was decreed ex parte on 25.11.2009 due to the absence of the official representing the State. 752 days thereafter, an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was filed along with an application for condonation of delay. Those applications were dismissed for non-representation and failure to take steps. Thereupon, the petitioners moved ``` OP(C) NO. 511 OF 2021 ``` ``` 4 ``` another application seeking to restore the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The second application was filed with a delay of 638 days. The trial court dismissed the second set of applications on 22.12.2015. Undaunted, the petitioners again moved an application for restoration of the earlier applications, this time with a shorter delay of 105 days. The trial court having dismissed the third set of applications on 06.06.2016, the petitioners preferred CMA Nos.25 of 2019 and 26 of 2019 with a delay of 1007 days. The appeals having been dismissed, this original petition is filed seeking to set aside the judgment/orders and to permit the petitioners to contest the suit on merits. 3. The learned Government Pleader strenuously argued that the State has got valid legal contentions in the suit and if the suit is not decided on merits, public interest will suffer. It is contended that the courts are bound to adopt a liberal approach in the matter of condonation of delay, particularly when State is the applicant. In support of the ``` OP(C) NO. 511 OF 2021 ``` ``` 5 ``` contention, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao and others [(2005) 3 SCC 752] and Mandal Revenue Officer v. Goundla Venkaiah and another [(2010) 2 SCC 461]. 4. Sri.Shaji Chirayath, learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the careless and casual manner in which the suit was contested by the petitioners demonstrate their lack of interest and the Original Petition is filed on an experimental basis. It is contended that, in the absence of sufficient reason, delay cannot be condoned, even if the Government is the applicant. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel and having carefully analysed and perused the judgment/orders, I find absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The fact that the Government Pleaders in the trial courts are tied down with criminal matters and adjustments are made by the civil courts, to suit their convenience, neither their busy schedule nor engagement in criminal ``` OP(C) NO. 511 OF 2021 ``` ``` 6 ``` matters justify the inordinate delay in filing the applications for setting aside the ex-parte decree, the application for restoring the earlier applications dismissed for nonrepresentation and the delay in filing appeals against those orders. The liberal approach to be adopted in the matter of condonation of delay and the even more liberal consideration towards the State, is not reason enough for allowing the original petition. The decisions pressed into service by the learned Government Pleader are also of no avail. The State’s interest having been jeopardised by its officials, it is for the state to fix responsibility and to take appropriate action against the erring officials. Any interference by this Court will cause extreme prejudice to the respondent. The Original Petition is dismissed for the aforementioned reasons. ## **`Sd/-V.G.ARUN JUDGE`** ``` RK ``` ``` OP(C) NO. 511 OF 2021 ``` ``` 7 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF OP(C) 511/2021`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` EXHIBIT P1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE THE EXPARTE DECREE VIDE I.A. NO. 265/2012 DATED 25.11.2009. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY VIDE I.A. NO. 266/2012. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED MUNSIFF COURT. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 2986/2014 DATED 16.07.2014. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF I.A. NO. 2987/2014 FOR THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION. ``` - **`EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT, KOLLAM.`** - **`EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO. 314/2016 FOR RESTORATION.`** - **`EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO. 314/2016 FOR RESTORATION.`** ``` EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF I.A.NO. 315/2016 FOR THE DELAY CONDONATION PETITION. ``` ``` EXHIBIT P10TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM IN CMA NO. 25/2019. ``` - **`EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED`** ``` 8 ``` ## **`OP(C) NO. 511 OF 2021`** ``` BEFORE THE LEARNED DISTRICT COURT, KOLLAM IN CMA NO.26/2019 ``` ``` EXHIBIT P12 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.02.2020. ```