The District Collector, Thrissur District; Revenue Divisional Officer, Thrissur; Additional Tahsildar, Wadakkancherry Taluk; Village Officer, Wadakkancherry v. Benny K.T. & Roy Francis

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2019/4TH CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **W.A.No.1274 OF 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.3.2013 IN W.P(C).NO.21637/2012 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 IN W.P.C:** - **1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 003.** - **2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THRISSUR - 680 003.** - **3 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR THALAPPILLY TALUK, WADAKKANCHERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 582.** - **4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR - 680 582.** **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SURINE GEORGE IPE** ## **RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS IN W.P.(C):** - **1 BENNY K.T. S/O.THOMAS,KUNALI HOUSE, KUMARANELLORE VILLAGE,WADAKKANCHERY – 680 582.** - **2 ROY FRANCIS S/O.FRANCIS,KURUTHOOKULANGARA HOUSE, ENKAKAD DESOM,ENLEAKAD VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK,THRISSUR DISTRICT – 680 589.** **BY ADVS.SRI.A.V.JOJO** ## **SRI.A.X.VARGHESE** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.A.NO.1274/2013 : 2 :** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.** The respondents in W.P.(C).No.21637/2012 are the appellants herein, and they are aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.3.2013 of the learned Single Judge. By the said judgment, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition preferred by two persons by name, Sri.Benny K.T. and Sri.Roy Francis, who were aggrieved by communications received from the Tahsildar stating that their lands were described in the Basic Tax Register [BTR] as “Karam pathinja tharise”, and thus were Government lands, and hence, the applications submitted by the writ petitioners for correction of the entry in the BTR pertaining to their lands could not be considered. It was the further stand of the revenue authorities, as evidenced from Ext.P15 order passed against the petitioners that, inasmuch as there was an appeal pending before the District Court, Thrissur, as A.S.No.188/2009 with regard to another land comprised in Sy.No.754/1 in Vadakkancherry Village, until a final decision was rendered in the said case, no decision could be taken on the applications submitted by the petitioners for change of the entry in the BTR. 2. It needs to be noted that this Writ Appeal was originally disposed by judgment dated 9.3.2015, when a Division Bench of this Court noted that, during the pendency of the proceedings, the necessary modifications in the BTR had already been entered, and mutation effected in favour of the writ petitioners, and **W.A.NO.1274/2013 : 3 :** therefore, the Writ Appeal itself had become infructuous with the passage of time. The Writ Appeal was thus dismissed noting that it had become infructuous. Against the said judgment of the Division Bench, the State preferred a Special Leave Petition [SLP] before the Supreme Court, which led to the order dated 6.11.2015 of the Supreme Court, granting liberty to the appellants herein to file an application for review before this Court within four weeks, and with a further direction to this Court to deal with the revived writ appeal on merits, and not to dispose it on the ground of limitation. It was the opinion of the Supreme Court, while passing the aforementioned order that, this Court should have addressed itself to the legal issue flowing from the decision of the Supreme Court in The Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi & Others v. Jalaja Dileep & Another - [2015 (2) KHC 109 (SC)] = [2015 (1) KLT 984 (SC)]. 3. Consequent to the disposal of the SLP, by the aforementioned order, the State preferred a Review Petition [R.P.No.1149/2015], and the said Review Petition was allowed by an order dated 26.2.2016. It is thus that W.A.No.1274/2013 is now once again before us, for final hearing. 4. It is the contention of the learned Government Pleader Sri.Surine George Ipe appearing for the appellants that, in respect of the adjacent land, which was the subject matter of the proceedings before the Munsiff's Court, Vadakkancherry, in O.S.No.600/2007, and subsequently, the pending appeal - A.S.No.188/2009 of the District Court, Thrissur, [subsequently re-numbered as A.S.No.147/2016 before the Court of II[nd] Additional Sub Judge, Thrissur], the **W.A.NO.1274/2013 : 4 :** Munsiff Court had entered a categorical finding that the land in question, and covered in the same Survey number, was Government land, and the appeal [A.S.No.147/2016] has since been dismissed for default. It is contended that inas much as it was concluded by the proceedings before the Civil Court that the land in Sy.No.754/1 of the Vadakkanchery Village was Government land, there could not have been a direction by the learned Single Judge to correct the entry in the BTR to show that the land belonging to the petitioners is 'Pandaravaka Verumpattam land'. 5. Per contra, it is the contention of Sri.A.V.Jojo, the learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners that the judgment of the Sub Court, dismissing the appeal A.S.No.147/2016 for default, can have no bearing on the nature of the land owned by the writ petitioners in Sy.No.754/1 of Vadakkancherry Village. It is stated that the learned Single Judge had, vide the impugned judgment, clearly taken note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Purushothaman Namboodiri v. State of Kerala - [1962 KLT 1 (SC)], as also the proclamation issued by the Cochin Government to hold that the entry in the settlement registers, showing the land belonging to the petitioners as Pandaravaka Verumpattam land, had to be seen as conferring a proprietary interest by way of royal proclamation on the writ petitioners. It is pointed out that, it is after rendering a finding with regard to the proprietary interest held by the petitioners over the said lands that the learned Single Judge directed the consideration of the applications for consequential correction in the BTR pertaining to the said lands. **W.A.NO.1274/2013 : 5 :** 6. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that this matter was remanded by the Supreme Court, with a direction to consider the impact of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jalaja Dileep's case [supra]. The said decision, which was rendered in the context of the procedure to be followed for correction of entries in the BTR, made it clear that the entries in the BTR could not be changed on the mere application submitted by a person claiming that the entry was wrong, but the nature of the land had to be established in substantive proceedings, and the correction of entries in the BTR could only be made consequential to the determination of the nature of land in substantive proceedings. Going by the ratio of the said judgment, we find that, in the instant case too, the learned Single Judge had, in the impugned judgment, clearly found that a proprietary interest, in respect of the land, had accrued to the writ petitioners, by way of the royal proclamation, and the entry of the lands as 'Pandaravaka Verumpattam land' in the settlement registers. It is in that context that the learned Single Judge then directed a consideration of the applications for correction of the entries in the BTR. Since the consequential correction of entries in the BTR, during the pendency of the Writ Appeal, had been made based on the said direction, and the directions were not in contravention of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Jalaja Dileep's case [supra], we find that there is no material produced before us in this Writ Appeal, which would suggest that the corrections made in favour of the writ petitioners, in the BTR, are erroneous in fact. It is also relevant to note that the civil proceedings that were stated to be pending, and were cited as a reason for not effecting the corrections in the BTR, at the instance of the writ petitioners, pertained to adjacent lands albeit within the same Survey **W.A.NO.1274/2013 : 6 :** Number. We have not been shown any document that would suggest that those adjacent lands were also covered by entries in the settlement registers as 'Pandaravaka Verumpattam land'. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal and accordingly dismiss this Writ Appeal. **Sd/HRISHIKESH ROY CHIEF JUSTICE** **Sd/A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** prp/26/3/19 **W.A.NO.1274/2013 : 7 :** ## APPENDIX ## PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4335/2006 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERY DATED 30.10.2006. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.4336/2006 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERY DATED 30.10.2006. EXT.P3: COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 31.1.2007. EXT.P4: COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 31.1.2007. EXT.P5: COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE KERALA LAND CONSERVANCY ACT, 1957 DATED 7.6.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P6: COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE KERALA LAND CONSERVANCY ACT, 1957 DATED 7.6.2007 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT.P5 AND EXT.P6 NOTICES DATED NIL. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2.8.2007 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2011 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE OBJECTION/REPRESENTATION DATED 24.2.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE OBJECTION/REPRESENTATION DATED 24.2.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P12: COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE SURVEY AND SETTLEMENT REGISTER OF THE VILLAGE. EXT.P13: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS. EXT.P14: COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P15: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.3.2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P16: COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3/1120. EXT.P17: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.1031/62 OF WADAKKANCHERY SUB – REGISTRY. **W.A.NO.1274/2013 : 8 :** EXT.P18: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. EXT.19: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE