IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 OP.No. 3653 of 1998(I) ------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- D.SIVARAJAN, RAJ BHAVAN, PULINGUDI, KOTTUKAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SMT.SREELETHA PUTHALATHU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF KERALA. 2. BOARD OF REVENUE (LR) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. ASST. COLLECTOR , THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA. 6. KLOUS SCHLEUSENER, MANAGING DIRECTOR, SURYA SAMUDRA, HOLIDAY RESORTS PVT. LTD., PULINKUDI, MULLOOR P.O. R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHADEVI R6 BY ADV.MR.K.L.NARASIMHAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.6553/1998 IN OP. 3653/1998. DISMISSED 03/12/2009 SD/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B8-26379/93 DTD. 13.6.94 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR./ P2:- COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DTD. 7.7.94 OF THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER NO.LR)J) 3- 22226/94/K.DIS DTD. 29.7.1994 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE. P4:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.B.11779/94 DTD. 24.8.1994 OF THE R.D.O., TRIVANDRUM. P5:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.11779/94/B(LA)3/94 DTD. 25.2.1995. P6:- COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF REVISION DTD. 3.13.1995 BY THE PETITIONER. P7:- COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 21.3.1997 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT. P8:- COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD. 10.1997. P9:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.D.DIS. 10066/95/LR(J) 3 DTD. 17.11.1997 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 3653 of 1998 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was assigned 80 cents of Government land in Sy. No. 483/1 of Kottukal Village, Neyyattinkara Taluk. The petitioner was served with Ext. P1 order dated 13-6-1994 of the Tahsildar, cancelling the patta issued to the petitioner on the ground that the District Collector had directed to cancel the same. Since Ext. P1 order was passed by the Tahsildar on the basis of a direction by the District Collector, instead of filing appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, the petitioner chose to file a revision before the Board of Revenue, who, by Ext. P3, forwarded the same to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Trivandrum directing him to treat it as an appeal and dispose of the same. Originally, the Revenue Divisional Officer stayed the proceedings , but later, by Ext. P5, confirmed Ext. P1 order. The petitioner again filed a revision petition , which was also rejected by Ext. P9 order. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P1, P5 and P9 orders in this original petition. 2. The petitioner would contend that the entire proceedings are vitiated by arbitrariness and violation of principles of natural justice. He points out that before issuing Ext. P1 order, no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. He points out that in Ext. P1, there is absolutely no reason mentioned whatsoever for cancelling the patta issued to the petitioner. He further points out that in Ext. P5 order also, except stating that the patta has been cancelled on account of irregularities in the assignment, the order does not state as to what are the irregularities for which the patta is sought to be cancelled. Again in Ext. P9 also, nothing is mentioned as to what are the irregularities for which the patta issued to the petitioner is liable to be cancelled. The petitioner therefore submits O.P.. No. 3653/98 -: 2 :- that Exts.P1, P5 and P9 orders are liable to be quashed. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed in support of the impugned orders. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. Ext. P1 is in Malayalam. It contains three paragraphs. The first paragraph says that the petitioner has been given a patta dated 28-5-1992 as LA2. 4/92. The second paragraph says that the District Collector has directed that since the patta has been issued in violation of the Rules, the said patta shall be cancelled. The third paragraph says that the patta issued to the petitioner is cancelled. There is absolutely no mention whatsoever for what reasons the patta has been cancelled. 6. The operative portion of Ext. P5 reads thus: “I find that the appeal cannot be allowed on the grounds contended therein because of the following facts:- The contention of the appellant that he had filed documents before the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram shown clearly that he was afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard by the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram. Tahsildar's order cancelling the patta clearly referred to the directions of the District Collector and/or therefore the appellant was well aware of the proceedings cancelling the registry. Upon detailed enquiry it is found that the land in question is purely a Government land and both the appellant and the petitioner M.D. Surya Samudra have no manner of right over the Government poramboke land. The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram has conducted a detailed enquiry and found that the patta was issued in an irregular manner. As per the statute the assigning authority can cancel the patta already issued if it is found that there was an irregularity in the procedure. Hence the order of the Tahsildar which cancelled the patta is found as per rules. The civil suit referred to by the appellant does not pertain to issue of patta and benefit is not a bar in deciding this appeal petition. In the event of cancellation of Registry, the assignee shall not be entitled to any compensation for any improvements he may have made on the lands as per the statute. Hence, the contention of the appellant that he had made valuable improvements on the land is rejected. In the circumstances I do not find any reason warranting the interference of this appellate authority with the impugned order of O.P.. No. 3653/98 -: 3 :- the Tahsildar, Neyyattinkara, which cancelled the patta in respect of 80 cents of land comprised in Sy. No. 483/1 of Kottukal Villaage issued to the appellant. The appeal is therefore found without merit and benefit is dismissed. The order No. 26379/93 dated 14- 6-94 issued by the Tahsildar, Neyyattinkara is upheld. The stay order issued as per this office proceedings NO. 11779/9/94 dated 23-8-94 stands vacated.” There also apart from stating that on enquiry it is found that the patta was issued in an irregular manner, the same does not disclose as to what is the irregularity in issuing the patta. 7. The operative portion of Ext. P9 order reads thus: “The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the patta was cancelled without giving proper notice for cancellation; as required under Rules 8(3) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. The rulings reported in 1997(2) KLJ 22, 1996 (1) KLJ 144 and 1997 (2) KLT 85 are stated in support of the contentions. It is seen that the cancellation was made by the Tahsildar on the basis of a direction of the District Collector. The revision petitioner argues that the Collector's enquiry is not adequate. It is seen from the records that the District Collector had conducted a detailed enquiry and that the revision petitioner had been given adequate opportunities to present his case before the Collector. Once the Collector had reached a finding after giving reasonable opportunities to the parties, there is no need for the Tahsildar to conduct a fresh enquiry. The Assigning authority or any superior authority is competent to order the cancellation of the patta. Enqiries had revealed that the patta was granted in an irregular manner with the Village officer and Revenue Inspector giving false reports and misleading the authorities. Enqjiries also disclosed inexplicable haste in the disposal of the application at the Taluk Office. The Collector had taken all the relevant aspects into consideration before ordering the cancellation of the patta. Disciplinary action was taken against the officials involved in the irregular deal. The counsel for the revision petitioner states that the sequence of the paragraphs in the Assistant Collector's Appellate Orders shows that the Appellate Authority had first decided to dismiss the appeal and then given the reasons for the findings. This contention has no force since the appellate order has to be as one organic whole, without looking at extracts from different parts of it. The eligibility of the Managing Director, Sooriya Samudra Resorts to be heard in this case was also questioned. It is seen that they are interested parties and they were heard by the Lower Appellate O.P.. No. 3653/98 -: 4 :- Authority also before the final decision was taken. Considering all the aspects of the case, the Board is satisfied that the cancellation of the patta is perfectly justified. Te Revision Petition is dismissed.” That order also does not throw any light whatsoever as to what are the reasons on which the petitioner's patta is sought to be cancelled. Therefore, I do not have to endeavour much to conclude that the impugned orders are totally arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the same are quashed. The original petition is allowed as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/