Suhara.K and others v. State of Kerala and others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** **TUESDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1940** ## **WP(C).No. 41234 of 2018** ## **PETITIONERS:** |**1**|**SUHARA.K,**| |---|---| ||**AGED 57 YEARS**| ||**D/O K.MUHAMMED HAJI,KALLANGODAN HOUSE,KALPETTA**| ||**POST,WAYNAD-673 121**| |**2**|**SULEKHA K,**| ||**AGED 55 YEARS**| ||**D/O K.MUHAMMED HAJI,KALLANGODAN HOUSE,KALPETTA**| ||**POST,WAYNAD-673 121**| |**3**|**NAFEESA K,**| ||**AGED 53 YEARS**| ||**D/O K.MUHAMMED HAJI,KALLANGODAN HOUSE,KALPETTA**| ||**POST,WAYNAD-673 121**| |**4**|**ABDUL SAMMAD,**| ||**AGED 50 YEARS**| ||**S/O K.MUHAMMED HAJI,KALLANGODAN HOUSE,KALPETTA**| ||**POST,WAYNAD-673 121**| |**5**|**RAMLA K,**| ||**AGED 53 YEARS**| ||**D/O K.MUHAMMED HAJI,KALLANGODAN HOUSE,KALPETTA**| ||**POST,WAYNAD-673 121**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN**| ||**SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER**| ||**SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN**| ||**SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN**| ||**SRI.SABU GEORGE**| ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,REVENUE DEPARTMENT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001** WP(C).No. 41234 of 2018 2 - **2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD-673121** **3 TAHSILDAR, VYTHIRI TALUK,KALPETTA P.O.WAYANAD DISTRICT 673 121** **SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY, SR.GOVT.PLEADER** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No. 41234 of 2018 3 # **(CR)** # **ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.** **=========================== W.P(C)No.41234 of 2018 ===========================** Dated this the 26[th] day of February, 2019 # **JUDGMENT** The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: “ _i) issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P4_ _ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to implement Exhibit P1 within a time frame fixed by this Hon’ble Court;_ _iii) Award the Petitioner the cost of this Writ Petition.”_ 2. Heard Sri.P.B.Krishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 3. The petitioners are the legal heirs of late Kollengodan Muhammed Haji, who was said to be in possession and enjoyment of 11.80 Acres of landed property in survey Nos.1044/2 and 1044/4 of Muttil North Village, Vythiri Taluk, Wayanad Revenue District, for several decades, by registered document No.660/1958 dated 14.03.1958 of SRO, Vythiri. The said land was allotted to the abovesaid late Kollengodan Muhammed Haji, WP(C).No. 41234 of 2018 4 by way of a gift from his father and the right of the father of the Kollengodan Muhammed Haji in turn is with reference to registered document No.2286/1938, it is averred. That Kollengodan Muhammed Haji was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties from 1958 onwards and he had got the property duly registered as a coffee estate under Section 14 of the Coffee Market Expansion Act, 1952. Later, the father of the petitioners had died on 14.07.1976. It is thereafter that the competent authority of the 1[st] respondent-State Government had issued Ext.P-1 G.O(MS)No.626/98/REV dated 19.12.1998, whereby from out of the said total extent of 11.80 Acres of property in survey Nos.1044/2 and 1044/04, the Government had ordered the assignment of lands, having an extent of 2.15 Acres to the 5[th] petitioner (Smt.Ramla), 4.00 Acres to the 1[st] petitioner (Smt.Suhara), 2.15 Acres to the 2[nd] petitioner (Sulekha), 2.15 Acres to the 3[rd] petitioner (Nafeesa) and the balance 1.33 Acres to the 4[th] petitioner Sri.Abdul Sammad respectively and the assignment was directed to be made after realising land value from the respective petitioners. It is discernible from the 3[rd] paragraph of Ext.P-1 that the 2[nd] respondent-District Collector had reported that the land value comes to Rs.700/- per cent. Further, the 1[st] respondent-State Government has directed in Ext.P-1 that the 2[nd] respondent-District Collector, Waynad will WP(C).No. 41234 of 2018 5 ## take consequential action in that regard. The operative portion of Ext.P-1 G.O.(MS)No.626/1998/RD dated 19.12.1998, reads as follows: **"** റവന� വകപ� **-** വയന�ട� ജ�ലയ�ൽ വവത�ര� ത�ലക�ൽ മട�ൽ നന�ർത� വ�നലജ�ൽ റ� **.** സ **. 1044/2, 1044/4** എന�വയ�ൽ ഉൾപപട **11.80** ഏകർ സർക�ർ ഭമ� ശ$മത�മ�ർ സന&ഖ **,** സഹറ **,** റ)& **,** നബ$സ **,** ശ$ **.** അബൽ സമദ� എന�വർക� ഈട�ക�പക�ണ പത�ച നൽക� ഉതരവ�കന **.** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** റവന� **(** എൽ **)** വകപ� സർക�ർ ഉതരവ� **(** എ) **.** എസ� **) 626/98/** റവ **.** ത�രവനനപര) **,** ത$യത� **:19/12/1998** - **-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** - പര�മർശ) **: 1) 21/06/93** പ& റവന� നബ�ർഡ� പസകടറ�യപട പകഡ�സ� **24018/93/** എൽ **.** ആർ **.** പജ **5** നമർ കത� **.** - **2) 21/06/93** പ& റവന� നബ�ർഡ� പസകടറ�യപട പകഡ�സ� **24017/93/** എൽ **.** ആർ **.** പജ **5** നമർ കത� **.** - **3) 21/06/93** പ& റവന� നബ�ർഡ� പസകടറ�യപട പകഡ�സ� **24031/93/** എൽ **.** ആർ **.** പജ - **5** നമർ കത� **. 4) 21/06/93** പ& റവന� നബ�ർഡ� പസകടറ�യപട പകഡ�സ� **24019/93/** എൽ **.** ആർ **.** പജ - **5** നമർ കത� **. 5) 21/06/93** പ& റവന� നബ�ർഡ� പസകടറ�യപട പകഡ�സ� **24018/93/** എൽ **.** ആർ **.** പജ **5** നമർ കത� **.** - **6) 21/06/93** പ& റവന� നബ�ർഡ� പസകടറ�യപട പകഡ�സ� **24018/93/** എൽ **.** ആർ **.** പജ **5** നമർ കത� **.** - **7)** വയന�ട� ജ�ല� കളകറപട **08/01/98** പ& എൽ **6/32078/95** നമർ കത� **.** ഉതരവ നമൽ ഒന� മതൽ അഞ വപര പര�മർശ പക�ര) വയന�ട� ജ�ലയ�ൽ വവത�ര� ത�ലക�ൽ മട�ൽ നന�ർത� വ�നലജ�പ& സർനD ന) **.1044/2, 1044/4** എന�വയ�ൽ ഉൾപപട **11.80** ഏകർ സർക�ർ ഭമ� ശ$മത�മ�ർ സന&ഖ **,** സഹറ **,** റ)& **,** നബ$സ **,** ശ$ **.** അബൽ **.** സമദ� എന�വർക� ത�പE പറയ) പക�ര) പത�ച നൽകനത�ന� റവന� നബ�ർഡ� പസകടറ� ശപ�ർശ പGയ�രന |**1)**|ശ$മത�**.**സന&ഖ|**-**|**2.15**|ഏകർ| |---|---|---|---|---| |**2)**|ശ$മത�**.**സഹറ|**-**|**4.00**|ഏകർ| |**3)**|ശ$മത�**.**റ)&|**-**|**2.15**|ഏകർ| |**4)**|ശ$മത�**.**നബ$സ|**-**|**2.15**|ഏകർ| |**5)**|ശ$**.**അബൽ സമദ|**-**|**1.35**|ഏകർ| ||||**------------------------**|| ||ആപക|<br>|**11.80**|ഏകർ| ||||**============**|| ആറ�) സGന പക�ര) വയന�ട� ജ�ല� കളകർ ആനJപങൾ Jണ�ചപക�ണ� നകരള ഭമ� പത�വ Gടമനസര�ചള നന�ട$സ� പസ�ദ$കര�ച�രന **.** എന�ൽ യ�പത�ര വ�ധമ�യ ആനJപങള) &ഭ�ച�രന�പലന) ആ ഭമ� ഏപതങ�ല) പപ�ത ആവശYത�ന� നവണ� വരന�പലന) ജ�ല� കളകർ അറ�യ�ച�രന **.** അനപJകരപട വ�ർഷ�ക വരമ�ന) ന�ർദ�ഷ പര�ധ� കവ�യനത�ന�ൽ ഭമ�യപട കനമ�ള വ�& WP(C).No. 41234 of 2018 6 ഈട�ക�പക�ണ� പസത ഭമ� അനപJകർക� പത�ച നൽകനത�ന� ശപ�ർശ പGയപക�ണള ന�ർന^ശ) ജ�ല� കളകർ റവന� നബ�ർഡ� പസകടറ� മനഖന ഗവപ`ന�ന സമർപ�കകയണ�യ� **.** റവന� നബ�ർഡ� പസകടറ�യ) ഈ ഭമ� പത�ച നൽകനത�ന ശപ�ർശ പGയ�രന **.** അത�നന�പട�പ) തപന അനപJകർ ഭമ� വ�& അടക�ൻ തയ�റ�പണന� സമത�ചത�യ) അറ�യ�ച�രന **.** ഏE�) സGന പക�ര) ഭമ�ക പസപന�ന�ന� **700/-** രപയ�പണന ജ�ല� കളകർ റ�നപ�ർട� പGയ�ര�കന **.** സർക�ർ ഇക�രY) വ�ശദമ�യ� പര�നശ�ധ�കകയണ�യ� **.** അതനസര�ച വയന�ട� ജ�ലയ�ൽ **,** വവത�ര� ത�ലക�ൽ മട�ൽ നന�ർത� വ�നലജ�പ& സർനD ന) **.1044/2, 1044/4** എന�വയ�ൽ ഉൾപപട **11.80** ഏകർ ഭമ� ശ$മത� സന&ഖയ� **2.15** ഏകറ) **,** ശ$മത� **.** സഹറക� **4.00** ഏകറ) **,** ശ$മത� **.** റ)&ക� **2.15** ഏകറ) **,** ശ$മത� **.** നബ$സക� **2.15** ഏകറ) **,** ശ$ **.** അബൽ സമദ�ന� **1.35** ഏകറ) പസപന�ന�ന� **700/-** രപ വ�& ഈട�ക� പത�ച നൽക�ൻ ഉതരവ�കന **,** വയന�ട� ജ�ല� കളകർ ഇത�ൽ അനനര നടപട� സh$കര�നകണത�ണ� **. "** 4. Since no effective action was forthcoming from the 2[nd] respondent to finalise and comply with the directions in Ext.P-1 Government Order for assignment of the respective extent of lands to the respective petitioners, they had sent repeated representations to respondents 2 & 3 for grant of patta. Further that in respect of lands in the same area, pattayams have been issued to other similar persons, without much difficulty. 5. Later, the petitioners had received Ext.P-2 letter No.G3946/15(1) dated 20.01.2015 issued by the 3[rd] respondent-Tahsildar that each of the five petitioners can be given assignment and patta only to a limited extent of 1 Acre each out of the total land of 11.80 Acres comprised in re-survey Nos.1044/2 and 1044/4, subject to the prevalent Rules and subject to payment of market value and it is informed therein that this is on account of the directions issued by the 1[st] respondent-State Government in G.O.(MS)No.156/2014/RD dated 26.02.2014. According to the petitioners, WP(C).No. 41234 of 2018 7 Ext.P-2 proceedings and the orders referred to therein have been issued in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice and that the directions in Ext.P-1 G.O dated 19.12.1998 have thus been unilaterally altered and reversed, etc. Being aggrieved by the said reduction of land for assignment, the petitioners have preferred a Writ Petition (Civil) as W.P(C)No.22896/2015. This Court as per Ext.P-3 judgment dated 05.10.2015 had finally disposed of W.P(C)No.22896/2015 by holding that the impugned decision reflected in Ext.P-2 dated 20.01.2015 is contrary to the directions issued by the 1[st] respondent-State Government in Ext.P-4 therein/Ext.P-1 herein. This Court further held and declared that Ext.P-4 therein/Ext.P-1 herein cannot be varied so long as the same is in force. Accordingly, this Court had set aside the impugned decision reflected in Ext.P-10 therein/Ext.P-2 herein and directed the respondent-Tahsildar to take consequential decision in consonance with Ext.P-4 therein/Ext.P-1 herein and to complete the necessary formalities, within two months, etc. 6. When the matter has been taken up for consideration, the respondents have now apprised this Court that G.O. (MS)No.156/2014/RD dated 26.02.2014 as referred to in Ext.P-2 was issued, whereby the extent of the land assignable to each of the five petitioners has been reduced to 1 Acre each. The said G.O.(MS)No.156/2014/RD dated 26.02.2014 reads WP(C).No. 41234 of 2018 8 ## as follows: **"** റവന� വകപ� **-** വയന�ട� ജ�ലയ�ൽ വവത�ര� ത�ലക�ൽ മട�ൽ നന�ർത� വ�നലജ�ൽ റ$ സർനD **1044/2, 1044/4** എന�വയ�ൽ ഉൾപപട **11.80** ഏകർ സർക�ർ ഭമ�യ�ൽ ന�ന� ഒനരകർ ഭമ� വ$ത) ന�&വ�ലള വYവസകൾക� വ�നധയമ�യ� ശ$മത�മ�ർ **.** സന&ഖ **,** സഹറ **,** റ)& **,** നബ$സ **,** ശ$ **.** അബൽ സമദ� എന�വർക� ന�&വ�ലള കനമ�ള വ�& ഈട�ക� പക�ണ� പത�ച നൽകനത�ന� ഉതരവ� പറപപടവ�കന **.** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** റവന� **(** എൽ **)** വകപ� സ **.** ഉ **. (** എ) **.** സ� **.)** നമർ **156/2014/** റവ ത$യത� **,** ത�രവനനപര) **, 26 /02 /2014.** **---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------** പര�മർശ) **:- 1) 19/12/1998-** പ& സ **.** ഉ **. (** എ) **.** സ� **.)** ന) **. 626/1998/** റവ നമർ ഉതരവ� **. 2) 4/6/2013, 27/11/2013** എന$ ത$യത�കള�പ& &�ൻഡ� റവന� കമ$ഷണറപട എൽ **.** ആർ **. (** പജ **4) 19136/2013** നമർ കതകൾ **.** ## ഉതരവ വയന�ട� ജ�ലയ�ൽ വവത�ര� ത�ലക�ൽ മട�ൽ നന�ർത� വ�നലജ�ൽ റ$ സർനD **1044/2, 1044/4** എന�വയ�ൽ ഉൾപപട **11.80** ഏകർ സർക�ർ ഭമ� കലനങ�ടൻ നബ$സ **,** റ)& **,** സഹറ **,** സന&ഖ **,** ശ$ **.** അബൽ സമദ� എന�വർക� കനമ�ള വ�& ഈട�ക�പക�ണ� പത�ച� നൽകനത�ന� പര�മർശ) **(1)** പക�ര) സർക�ർ ഉതരവ�യ�രനത) പത�വ� നടപട� വയന�ട� ജ�ല� കളകർ സh$കര�ചവന�രനതമ�ണ� **.** എന�ൽ **3/3/2005** പ& ജ� **.** ഓ **. (** പ� **)** ന) **. 63/2005/** ആർ ഡ� പക�ര) പത�ച നൽക�വന സർക�ർ ഭമ�യപട പര�ധ� ഒര ഏകറ�യ� ന�ജപപടത�യ�ടളത�ന�ല) ഭരഹ�തർക� വ$ട� വയനത�ന�യ� പത�ച നൽക�വന ഭപര�ധ� പര�മ�തപപടത�യ�ടളളത�ന�ല) പര�മർശ) **(2)** പക�ര) &�ൻഡ� റവന� കമ�ഷണർ വയന�ട� ജ�ലയ�ൽ വവത�ര� ത�ലക�ൽ മട�ൽ നന�ർത� വ�നലജ�ൽ റ$ സർനD **1044/2, 1044/4** ൽപപട **11.80** ഏകർ സർക�ർ ഭമ� വകവശ) പവച� വരന ശ$മത�മ�ർ **.** നബ$സ **,** റ)& **,** സഹറ **,** സന&ഖ **,** ശ$ **.** അബൽ സമദ� എന�വർക� ഒനരകറ�ൽ കടതൽ ഭമ� വകവശ) പവച� വരനത�ന�ൽ ന�&വ�ലള ന�യമമനസര�ച പസത ഭമ� കJ�കൾക� പത�ച� നൽക�ൻ കE�യകയ�പലന) ആപകയ�ൽ ഈ വ�ഷയത�ൽ സഷ� ട$കരണ) നൽകണപമന) സർക�ര�നന�ട� ആവശYപപട�രന **.** **2)** സർക�ർ ഇക�രY) വ�ശദമ�യ� പര�നശ�ധ�ച **. 3/3/2005** പ& ജ� **.** ഒ **. (** പ� **)** ന) **. 63/05/** ആർ ഡ� പക�ര) ഹ�ൽ ഏര�യയ�ൽ കഷ� ആവശYത�ന� പത�ച� നൽക�നള ഭമ�യപട പര�ധ� ഒര ഏകറ�യ� ന�ജപപടത�യ�ടളത�ന�ല) **27/07/2011** പ& ജ� **.** ഒ **. (** എ) **.** സ� **.)** ന) **. 280/2011/** ആർ ഡ� പക�ര) ഭരഹ�തർക� വ$ട� വയനത�ന�യ� പത�ച നൽക�വന ഭപര�ധ� പര�മ�തപപടത�യ�ടളത�ന�ല) ഇനപ�ൾ ഭമ� വ�& കമ�ത$തമ�യ� വർദ�ച�ടളത�ന�ല) വയന�ട� ജ�ലയ�ൽ വവത�ര� ത�ലക�ൽ മട�ൽ നന�ർത� വ�നലജ�ൽ റ$ സർനD **1044/2, 1044/4** എന�വയ�ൽപപട **11.80** ഏകർ സർക�ർ ഭമ� വകവശ) പവച� വരന ശ$മത� **.** കലനങ�ടൻ നബ$സ **,** ശ$മത� **.** റ)& **,** ശ$മത� **.** സഹറ **,** ശ$മത� **.** സന&ഖ **,** ശ$ **.** അബൽ സമദ� എന�വർക� വകവശഭമ� പത�ച നൽകനത� ഒര ഏകറ�യ� ന�ജപപടത�പക�ണ) **.** ഇനപ�Eപത കനമ�ളവ�& ന�ശയ�ച� ഈട�ക�പക�ണ� പസത ഭമ� പത�ച നൽകവ�ന) സർക�ർ ഉതരവ� പറപപടവ�കന - **3)** പര�മർശ) **(1)** പ& സർക�ർ ഉതരവ� മൻഖണ�ക **(2)** പ& നഭദഗത�നയ�പട ന�&ന�ൽകനത�ണ� **.** - **4)** ഇത�നsൽ തടർ നടപട�കൾ &�ൻഡ� റവന� കമ�ഷണർ സh$കര�നകണത�ണ� **.** **(** ഗവർണറപട ഉതരവ�ൻപക�ര) **)** സതYജ$ത� ര�ജൻ പ�ൻസ�പൽ പസകടറ� **"** WP(C).No. 41234 of 2018 9 7. This Court had specifically directed the respondents to furnish factual instructions and the learned Government Pleader has also made available a copy of the said G.O.(MS)No.156/2014/RD dated 26.02.2014 for the perusal of this Court. This Court had directed the respondents to furnish specific factual instructions as to whether reasonable opportunity of being heard was granted to the petitioners prior to the issuance of the above G.O dated 26.02.2014. The respondents have now furnished instructions through government letter No.11/L3/2019/RD dated 29.01.2019 clearly stating that the petitioners have not been heard and that prior notice has also not been sent before the issuance of the said G.O dated 26.02.2014. Therefore, it is beyond any legal controversy that any such subsequent order as the one in the G.O dated 26.02.2014 which tries to restrict or reduce the benefit already granted to the petitioners through Ext.P-1 G.O dated 19.02.2019, would have any legal efficacy only if the petitioners had been granted prior reasonable opportunity of being heard and after taking into account the relevant aspects of the matter. Therefore, for that simple reason, it is only to be held that the said G.O dated 26.02.2014 is illegal and _ultra vires_ . That apart, the most important aspect of the matter is that this Court has already held in Ext.P-3 judgment dated 05.10.2015 in W.P(C)No.22896/2015 that the impugned decision reflected WP(C).No. 41234 of 2018 10 in Ext.P-2 dated 20.01.2015, is contrary to the decision in Ext.P-1 G.O and that the respondents cannot vary Ext.P-1 G.O and the same is in force. Accordingly, this Court has already set aside the impugned decision reflected in Ext.P-2 herein/Ext.P-10 therein as per Ext.P-3 judgment dated 05.10.2015 in W.P(C)No.22896/2015 and has directed the respondentTahsildar to take necessary steps strictly in accordance with Ext.P-1 G.O, within two months. The said judgment as per Ext.P-3 in W.P(C)No.22896/2015 has become final and conclusive between the parties. Ext.P-3 judgment has not been reversed or altered, in the manner known to law and is binding on both sides. Therefore, the respondents are obliged to strictly comply with the terms and conditions of Ext.P-1 G.O as already directed in Ext.P-3 judgment. Therefore, as noted hereinabove, since Ext.P-1 G.O has not been reversed or altered in the manner known to law, the same is still in force. All the more so the impugned decision in G.O.(MS)No.156/2014/RD dated 26.02.2014 as reflected in Ext.P-2 herein, is _ultra vires_ and unenforceable. In view of the conclusiveness of Ext.P-3 judgment, the respondents are obliged to comply with the concluded directions in Ext.P-3 judgment. That apart, the respondents cannot now collaterally challenge the correctness of Ext.P-3 judgment. In the judgment dated 27.07.2009 in W.P(C)No.35327/2004, the Division Bench of this WP(C).No. 41234 of 2018 11 Court has dealt with the case, whereby in the previous round of Writ litigative proceedings between the parties, which had ordered that the grant of benefit to the party concerned should be considered subject to payment of seigniorage fee prevalent at the time of the assignment of the land. The said direction was issued by this Court in the said previous round of writ litigative proceedings between the petitioners therein and the respondent-State authorities, on the basis of another judgment rendered by this Court in the similar circumstances. Since the respondent –State authorities had refused to comply with the directions issued by this Court in favour of the party concerned and when the same was challenged in a subsequent proceedings, a defence was taken by the respondent-State authorities that the directions issued by this Court in the previous writ litigative proceedings are illegal inasmuch as the Rules envisaged payment of seigniorage fee, which prevalent at the time when the benefit of cutting and removing the trees is considered and granted and not the seigniorage scheme that is prevalent at the time of assignment of the land and that the said directions issued by this Court in the previous round writ litigative proceedings are thus against the said statutory provisions and that the respondent-State Authorities are justified in not complying with the directions issued by this Court, which is against the statutory prescription, WP(C).No. 41234 of 2018 12 eventhough the said judgment had obtained conclusiveness inter-partes as no appeal or review was filed against it. The Division Bench of this Court in the abovesaid judgment dated 27.07.2009 in W.P(C)No.35327/2004 has categorically repelled the said contention of the respondent-State authorities though it is correct that the directions issued in the previous round of writ litigative inter-partes judgment to grant the benefit on the basis of the seigniorage fee prevalent at the time of the assignment of the land is otherwise wrong as it is against the statutory prescription, the respondent-State authorities cannot collaterally challenge the correctness and legality of the directions issued by this High Court in the previous writ litigative proceedings by taking up such a contention in the subsequent proceedings initiated by the same party, etc. 8. The Division Bench of this Court held therein that being an inter-partes judgment, even if it is demonstrably wrong, the respondentState authorities are obliged to follow that and that the judgment of a constitutional court like the High Court even if it is irregular or wrong, it cannot be ignored in subsequent proceedings and that the previous judgment can be corrected only in appeal or review. The Division Bench of this Court placed reliance on the opinion of the learned author H.W.R.Wade in his classical treatise, “Administrative Law, 9[th] Edition, WP(C).No. 41234 of 2018 13 under Part IV dealing with ‘Problems of Invalidity’”, which reads as follows: _“The order of a superior court, such as the High Court, must always be obeyed, no matter what flaws it may be thought to contain. Thus a party who disobeys a High Court injunction is punishable for contempt of court even though it was granted in proceedings deemed to have been irrevocably abandoned owing to the expiry of a time limit.”_ Prof.H.W.R.Wade while rendering the above opinion on the position of law has relied on the dictum laid down by Lord Diplock in _**Isaac v. Robertson**_ [1985(AC)97], which reads as follows: “The contrasting legal concepts of voidability form part of the English law of contract. They are inapplicable to orders made by a court of unlimited jurisdiction in the course of contentious litigation. Such an order is either irregular or regular. If it is irregular it can be set aside by the court that made it upon application to that court; if it is regular it can only be set aside by an appellate court upon appeal if there is one to which an appeal lies” 9. The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in W.P(C)No.35327/2004 has categorically endorsed the abovesaid legal decision and held that such collateral cannot be made by the respondents, so as to attack the correctness of the judgment of the High Court in the previous litigative writ proceedings between the parties. So also, it is clear from the abovesaid dictum that merely because the time limit stipulated in the contempt of court Rules for taking action for contempt of court has WP(C).No. 41234 of 2018 14 expired, is no ground to ignore the judgment rendered by a constitutional court like the High Court in the previous writ proceedings between the parties as in Ext.P-3 judgment. So it is only to be held that the respondents are obliged to strictly comply with Ext.P-3 judgment and thus ensure compliance of Ext.P-1 G.O.(MS)No.626/1998/RD dated 19.12.1998 in letter and spirit, without any further delay. 10. Accordingly, it is ordered that the 2[nd] respondent-District Collector and the 3[rd] respondent-Tahsildar, more particularly respondent No.3 will immediately take steps to issue pattas to each of the respective five petitioners in respect of the respective extents of lands to them as ordered in Ext.P-1 G.O and strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in Ext.P-1 G.O, without much delay. The entire formalities in this regard for issuance of the pattayams to each of the five petitioners should be duly completed by respondents 2 & 3, more particularly respondent No.3, within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Since Ext.P-1 G.O has been issued as early as on 19.12.1998, if the abovesaid directions are not complied with the abovesaid time limit, the latter will have to be viewed seriously. Respondents 2 & 3 will comply with the abovesaid directions in letter and spirit well before the expiry of the abovesaid time limit granted WP(C).No. 41234 of 2018 15 by this Court. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition (Civil) will stand disposed of. Sd/- **ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE** vgd WP(C).No. 41234 of 2018 16 ## **APPENDIX** **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOV ORDER BEARING NO GO(MS) 626/98/REV.TVM DATED 19.2.1998** **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE TAHSILDAR,VYTHIRI BEARING NO G3-946/15(1) DATED 30.1.2015 DATED 20.1.2015** **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.10.2015 IN WPC NO 22896 OF 2015(J) EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE OFFICE OF RESPONDENT NO 3 DATED 29.1.2018**