Valakkavu Granites (P) Ltd. v. The Tahsildar, Thrissur Taluk & Others

## **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** **WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019/10TH MAGHA, 1940** **W.A.No.172 OF 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO.15060/2018 of HIGH COURT** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **VALAKKAVU GRANITES (P) LTD., VATTAPPARA, VALAKKAVU, MULAYAM P.O., THRISSUR - 680 751, REP. BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,** **BY ADVS.SRI.A.V.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.K.ANAND SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 003. 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULAYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 751.** **BY SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2019 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.174/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.A.Nos.172 & 174/2019 : 2 :** ## **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 WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019/10TH MAGHA, 1940** **W.A.No.174 of 2019** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C).NO.18956/2018 of HIGH COURT** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **VALAKKAVU GRANITES (P) LTD VATTAPPARA, VALAKKAVU, MULAYAM P.O., THRISSUR - 680 751, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.** **SRI.A.V.THOMAS (SR.) SRI.BENNY ANTONY PAREL SRI.M.R.NANDAKUMAR** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE TAHSILDHAR**| |---|---| ||**THRISSUR TALUK, THRISSUR -680 003.**| |**2**|**THE VILLAGE OFFICER**| ||**MULAYAM VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 751.**| |**3**|**THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR SURVEY**| ||**COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR - 680 003.**| |**4**|**THE GEOLOGIST**| ||**DEPARTMENT OF MINING AND GEOLOGY,**| ||**MINI CIVIL STATION, 1ST FLOOR,**| ||**CHEMPOOKAVU, THRISSUR - 680 020.**| |**5**|**THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY**| ||**KESAVADASAPURAM, PATTOM, PALACE P.O.,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.**| ## **W.A.Nos.172 & 174/2019 : 3 :** **6 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR - 680 003.** **BY SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.01.2019 ALONG WITH W.A.NO.172/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.A.Nos.172 & 174/2019 : 4 :** ## **J U D G M E N T** ## **Hrishikesh Roy, C.J.** Heard Sri.Thomas A.V., the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Sri.Ranjith Thampan, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. 2. These two appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 18.1.2019 in the W.P.(C).No.18956/2018 and the W.P.(C).No.15060/2018 filed by the same petitioner. 3. The petitioner is a company engaged in granite quarrying on lands purchased by them from the pattadars and the assignees. The primary challenge in the W.P.(C).No.18956/2018 is, to the notice dated 30.5.2018 [Ext.P14] issued under Section 12 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 [hereinafter referred to as “the Conservancy Act”], wherein, the Tahsildar (LR), Thrissur Taluk, had alleged that the petitioner had unauthorisedly entered into the puramboke land measuring around 4 Hectares, under Survey Nos.364/21 and 364/22 of Mulayam Village. 4. The challenge in the other writ petition [W.P.(C).No.15060/2018] was to the communication dated 17.4.2018 [Ext.P7], of the Village Officer, Mulayam, ## **W.A.Nos.172 & 174/2019 : 5 :** whereby, the petitioner was informed that in view of the report submitted by the Tahsildar, Thrissur, and the action taken under the Conservancy Act, it is not possible to accept the land tax in respect of the disputed property covered by LA(P).625/MUM and LA(P).632/MUM, where M/s.Valakkavu Granites Pvt. Ltd. is operating. 5. The case projected by the writ petitioner is that, under the judgment dated 7.3.2018 [Ext.P10] in the W.P.(C).No.2196/2017, a Judge of this Court had considered the factual aspects of the matter, and had concluded that contradictory stand is taken by the revenue authorities in the said matter. While, in the initial part of the order, it was said that in respect of the two pattayams, it was suggested that no such pattayams were issued by the Revenue Department, and that the pattayams [Exts.P6 and P6(a) documents] were fabricated which were obtained with the assistance of the Officer of the Revenue Department. However, in the latter part of the order, impugned in the said proceeding, the stand taken is that the steps had been taken to cancel the pattayams, which, even according to the Officer, had never been issued by the Revenue Department. Noticing such inconsistencies, the learned Judge quashed the impugned Ext.P7 order, with consequential relief to the petitioner, making it clear that nothing in the judgment shall stand in the way of the respondents in taking action in accordance with law, for resumption of the lands belonging to the petitioner, in the event it is established either that, no pattayam was issued to the original assignees of the land, or that, if the pattayams were actually ## **W.A.Nos.172 & 174/2019 : 6 :** issued to the assignees, the petitioner had occasioned violation of the terms of the pattayams so issued. It was however made clear that if any proceedings were to be initiated against the petitioner, due opportunity will be provided to them. 6. The main contention of the learned senior counsel Sri.A.V.Thomas before us, to challenge the Ext.P14 notice, is that without determination of the factum that the concerned land is puramboke, the proceedings under the Conservancy Act has been initiated. The counsel argues that without a definite finding on the nature of the land to be a puramboke, an essential jurisdictional fact for initiating proceedings under the Conservancy Act, the Ext.P14 notice, could not have been issued by the Tahsildar (LR), Thrissur. In support of such contention, Mr.Thomas relies on Harissons Malayalam Ltd. v. State of Kerala reported in [2018 (2) KLT 369]. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Ranjith Thampan would argue that Ext.P14 notice was not issued in terms of the Conservancy Act, but it can be considered as a prelude to a proceeding under the said Act. Moreover it only requires the notice receiver to show cause as to why action should not be taken, and an opportunity is being provided to the petitioner, to appropriately respond to the notice. At any rate, the counsel would refer to the notice dated 25.7.2018 [Ext.P42], which called upon the petitioner to respond to the Tahsildar's proposal, to cancel the land tax accepted **W.A.Nos.172 & 174/2019 : 7 :** from the petitioner, in respect of the disputed land, and thereby establishing that the land is actually a puramboke land. It was therefore projected that, at the first instance, the issue arising out of the Ext.P7 notice in the W.P. (C).No.15060/2018 will have to be decided before any proceeding can be taken under the Conservancy Act, as against the Ext.P42 notice issued on 25.7.2018, when the writ petition was pending. 8. The learned Judge, as can be seen from the impugned judgment, while observing that proceedings under the Conservancy Act cannot be taken when there is a bone fide dispute as to the title of the property, found that the allegation as to the fraudulent nature of the pattas cannot be said to be, totally without any basis. It is for the writ petitioner to dispel the allegation raised as to the fraudulent nature of the pattas, and this is more so, on account of the fact that pattas were issued under the Land Assignment Rules, 1964, which specifically provide that such land can be utilised only for personal cultivation, household purpose or beneficial enjoyment of the registered holdings. Accordingly, the learned Judge opined that the writ petitioner, who is admittedly an assignee of the property through successive transaction(s) from the pattadars, cannot claim any higher rights than the pattadars themselves possessed. On this basis, the Court concluded that the impugned proceedings under the Conservancy Act are unassailable, and would require no interference from the Court, and in fact it was stated that the respondents are justified in taking action against the petitioner on the assumption that their title to the **W.A.Nos.172 & 174/2019 : 8 :** property is suspect, and it is for the writ petitioner to dispel such presumption of the respondent authorities. But it is relevant to note that the learned Judge did not conclude that the disputed land is 'puramboke'', so as to justify a proceeding under the Conservancy Act, at the instance of the State, and kept the issue open. The impugned judgment indicates that the W.P.(C).No.15060/2018 was dismissed on the basis of the aforesaid finding in the W.P.(C).No.18956/2018. 9. Having regard to the contention raised before us, the first thing that we need to state is that the proceedings under the Conservancy Act can only commence on finding that the concerned land is declared to be a 'puramboke land'. In this context, we may refer to Section 3(1)(b) of the Conservancy Act, wherein, it is stated that the Government property excludes those property, which is registered in the name of private holders in the revenue records, subject to payment of land revenue, on such land, to the Government. In the instant cases, it is not in dispute that, in respect of the disputed land, the tax from the writ petitioner was being collected till 2016-17, and only thereafter, the Tahsildar had refused to accept the land revenue. 10. Under the above circumstances, it is necessary, as is rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, that a decision must be taken, in pursuant to the Ext.P42 notice dated 25.7.2018 of the Tahsildar, which proposes to consider the issue as to whether the recovery of basic tax from the writ petitioner is to be cancelled ? Once a final conclusion is drawn on this ## **W.A.Nos.172 & 174/2019 : 9 :** aspect of the matter, then alone, the issue of proceeding under the Conservancy Act would arise. 11. In the above backdrop, we feel that the interest of justice will be served by vacating the adverse finding against the writ petitioner in the impugned judgment, on merits, and permitting the Tahsildar to complete the proceedings initiated under the notice dated 25.7.2018 [Ext.P42]. Needless to say, due opportunity is to be provided to the appellants to raise their contentions, on merits, including production of any documents to establish their title over the disputed land. On the basis of the appropriate conclusion, in pursuant to the Ext.P42 notice, the necessity to initiate the proceedings under the Conservancy Act, pursuant to Ext.P14 notice dated 30.5.2018, shall be decided. 12. With the above conclusion, the Writ Appeals are disposed of with the following orders:- (i) The impugned judgment of the learned Judge is modified to the extent of expunging the finding on merits, on the issue of title over the disputed land. (ii) The Tahsildar (LR), Thrissur, is directed to complete the proceedings initiated by the notice of 25.7.2018 [Ext.P42], after hearing the appellants, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ## **W.A.Nos.172 & 174/2019 : 10 :** (iii) The fate of further proceedings, in pursuant to the Ext.P14 notice, will depend upon the order to be passed by the Tahsildar, pursuant to Ext.P42 notice. (iv) All contentions, on the merits, are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. **Sd/-** **HRISHIKESH ROY CHIEF JUSTICE** **Sd/A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** prp/31/1/19 ## **W.A.Nos.172 & 174/2019 : 11 :** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO:82/18 DATED 17.04.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **EXT P14: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO:B2/12490/16 DATED 30.05.2018.** **EXT P42: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B-2-12490/16 DATED 25/7/2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND PASTED ON THE DOOR AT ABOUT 3 PM ON 26/7/2018.** ## **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.** ## **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE**