BY AD v. SRI.K.SHAJ
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 22 Jan 2024
- Bench
- P V KUNHIKRISHNAN
Outcome
Remanded
the case is remanded back to the Appellate
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. An extent of 70 cents of land in R.S.No. 170/1B and extent of 90 cents of land in R.S.No. 170/1C and an extent of 25 cents of land in R.S.No. 174/3B of Madhur Village was assigned in favour of WP(C) NO. 15947 OF 2014…
- Para 55. Ext.P4 is a remand order. A perusal of Ext.P4 order would show that the revision was allowed and the matter was remanded because the assignees were not the parties in the appeal against the original assignment and they are not in physical possession of…
Judgment
BY ADVS. SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.SAJJU.S RESPONDENTS: WP(C) NO. 15947 OF 2014 2 1 2 3 4 5 THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33. SUB COLLECTOR KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 121. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KASARAGOD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 121. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) KUMBLA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 121. DAINABI W/O. BEERAN MOIDEEN, MUTTATHODY, MADHUR VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT-671 121. BY ADVS. SRI.JAWAHAR JOSE - R5 SRI.RIYAL DEVASSY, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 15947 OF 2014 3 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------ W.P.(C)No. 15947 of 2014 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2024 JUDGMENT The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:
A) to issue a writ of certiorari calling on the records of the case and to quash Exhibit P4 order passed by the first respondent. B) pass such other writ order or direction that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and to award the cost of this petition.
[SIC]
An extent of 70 cents of land in R.S.No. 170/1B and extent of 90 cents of land in R.S.No. 170/1C and an extent of 25 cents of land in R.S.No. 174/3B of Madhur Village was assigned in favour of WP(C) NO. 15947 OF 2014 4 Seemanthi and Karthyayani respectively as per Land Assignment Order No. L.A.No.27/77/Madhur is the submission. Against the said assignment order, Aleema and N.A.Abdulla, the two children of Abdulkhader Haji Muttathody filed appeal which is numbered as A.A.No. 14/1980 before the 3rd respondent. According to them, the land assigned in favour of Seemanthi and Karthyayani were in direct possession and enjoyment of the appellants and enclosed by a single compound wall. They made two claims in the appeal, one for Kumki right and the other under the Government Order No. G.O(MS) 203/7/RD dated 24/02/1975. By Ext.P1 order, the 3rd respondent declined the claim of Kumki rights, but held that the matter requires consideration afresh and set aside the assignment order.
Challenging Ext.P1 order, the aforesaid Seemanthi WP(C) NO. 15947 OF 2014 5 and Karthyayani filed revision before the Board of Revenue (IR), Thiruvananthapuram. As per Ext.P2 order, the Board of Revenue upheld Ext.P1 order and rejected the revision petition. It is submitted that Aleema and Abdulla were the children of one Abdulkhader Hajee. It is also submitted that, on the basis of registered Partition Deed No. 1740/1970 of Kasargod SRO executed by the legal heirs of the said Abdulkhader Hajee, Ali and the mother of the petitioners, Asma got the property in dispute towards their shares. Hence, they filed separate petitions for assignment of the properties on the basis of the nature of improvements as well as long possession of the properties is the submission. Pursuant to Ext.P1 order, which was upheld by Ext.P2 order, the 4th respondent conducted enquiry and assigned 70 cents of land in R.S.No.
170/1B WP(C) NO. 15947 OF 2014 6 and 25 cents in R.S.No. 174/3B in Madhur Village as per L.A.No.27/1977 dated 30/11/1988 to the aforesaid Ali and the petitioners' mother, Asma respectively. It is submitted that, ever since then both the said Ali and the mother of the petitioners, Asma were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property. It is also submitted that on 07/06/1983, just a couple of months prior to Ext.P1 order, during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the predecessor of the petitioners' mother and aforesaid Ali, the afore said Seemanthi sold a portion of the disputed land. The remaining portion was sold on 13/06/1983 and by change of hands, the 5th respondent purchased the land on 19/09/2008. After purchasing the land, the 5th respondent challenged the re-assignment order before the 3rd respondent. Ext.P3 is the appeal WP(C) NO. 15947 OF 2014 7 memorandum. By order dated 31/07/2012 in A.A.No.9/2010, the 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal filed by the 5th respondent.
Thereafter, the 5th respondent filed a revision against order dated 31/07/2012 in A.A.No.9/2010 before the 1st respondent. During the pendency of the said revision petition, the mother of the petitioners expired. Subsequently, as per Ext.P4 order, the appeal was remanded back to the appellate authority for a fresh disposal. Aggrieved by Ext.P4 order, this Writ petition is filed.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent.
Operative part
This Court perused Ext.P4 order. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of Ext.P4 WP(C) NO. 15947 OF 2014 8 order:
The revision petition was examined in detail with all connected files and records. Besides, the remarks offered by the Appellate Authority were also perused. Counsel appeared for the hearing on behalf of the revision petitioner and offered arguments and produced certain documents. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the original assignment was made on Kumki right and the purchaser of the land has all the rights of kumkidar. On perusal of records and files, reports and arguments, the followings points had to be verified further. The assignees were not the parties in the appeal against the original assignment and they are not in physical possession of the land in question. As there was no stay order issued by the Appellate Authority during the pendancy of appeal against the original assignment, the original assignee seems had alienated the land after the grace period. Neither the Assigning Authority nor the Appellate Authority considered the fact that the land in question was alienated even long before the reassignment. It is not clear whether the original assignment dated 06.12.1978 was WP(C) NO. 15947 OF 2014 9 cancelled and complied the conditions envisaged in Rule 8(3) before the reassignment. ORDER Under the circumstances mentioned above, the case is remanded back to the Appellate Authority with the above observations, for fresh disposal.
Ext.P4 is a remand order. A perusal of Ext.P4 order would show that the revision was allowed and the matter was remanded because the assignees were not the parties in the appeal against the original assignment and they are not in physical possession of the land in question. In the light of the other observations in Ext.P4 also, the matter was remanded back to the appellate authority. This Writ petition is filed challenging the remand order. After hearing both sides, I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to interfere with Ext.P4 remand order. All the contentions raised by the WP(C) NO. 15947 OF 2014 10 petitioners are left open and the petitioners are free to agitate the same before the appellate authority based on Ext.P4 remand order. The appellate authority will consider the matter untrammeled by any observations in Ext.P4 remand order. With the above observation, this Writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- DM P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE WP(C) NO. 15947 OF 2014 11 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15947/2014 PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.18.8.1983 IN AA NO.14/1980 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P2 : COPY OF ORDER DTD.25.1.1988 IN FILE NO.DIS.32979/83/IRJ2 OF THE BOARD OF REVENUE(IR), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P3 : COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM AA NO.8/2010 FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.12.7.2013 IN FILE NO.LR(J)2- 35203/12 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: the case is remanded back to the Appellate
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 22 Jan 2024. The bench was P V KUNHIKRISHNAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.