IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 OP.No. 12465 of 2003(H) ----------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- MARIAMMA MAMMAN, PURACKEL VEEDU, HOUSE NO.216, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI - 15. BY MR.H.SIVARAMAN, ADVOCATE MR.MATHEW CHERIAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUNADU. 2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMBANAD VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SMT.M.R.SREELATHA,GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 4 THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No.12465/2003 C.M.P.No.21265/2003 IN O.P.No.12465/2003 DISMISSED. Sd/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE 04/02/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 8.7.1997. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT'S JUDGMENT DTD.27.8.1997 IN O.P.No.15050/97. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE R.D.O. MUVATTUPUZHA DTD. 26.12.1997. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DT.14.2.2001. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DT.15.12.2001. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.17.3.2003 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. DTED 7.11.2001. TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE S.SIRI JAGAN,J ========================= O.P.No.12465 of 2003 ========================== Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner purchased certain properties from persons to whom those properties were assigned by the Government under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules. The petitioner purchased the land in 1988. From then onwards, the petitioner has been in possession of the property paying tax as owner of the property. In fact, in respect of trees standing in the property reserved for the Government as per the assignment order, the petitioner applied to the District Collector and the District Collector permitted her to cut and remove the reserved trees by paying the price and sales tax fixed for the trees. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 6.11.1995 by the Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu, under Rule 16(3) of the Land Assignment Rules, proposing to cancel the patta issued to the assignees. The petitioner challenged the same in O.P.No.15050/1997 and this Court by Ext.P2 judgment relegated the petitioner to the alternate remedy available to the petitioner by way of an appeal before the appellate authority. The O.P.No.12465/2003 2 petitioner filed an appeal and pursuant to the same, by Ext.P3 order, the appellate authority, namely the Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha, set aside the order of the the Tahsildar cancelling the patta and directed the Tahsildar to conduct a detailed enquiry regarding possession of the property and related matters after hearing the assignees. That order is dated 26.12.1997. Thereafter, for a long time nothing was heard of by the petitioner regarding the matter. The petitioner continued to pay tax in respect of the property which was being received by the Village Officer. But, when the petitioner approached the Village Officer to pay tax for the year 2002-2003, the third respondent refused to accept the tax. Later on, the petitioner, on enquiry, came to know that on the basis of a report dated 19.9.2001, of the first respondent, the second respondent again cancelled the patta by order dated 7.11.2001, which is produced as Ext.P7. According to the petitioner, before passing Ext.P7 order the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard, which was mandatory, in so far as, in earlier proceedings, the petitioner was the appellant before the R.D.O and she was in possession and ownership of the property. The petitioner O.P.No.12465/2003 3 therefore, seeks the following reliefs: “i) Call for the records leading up to Ext.P7 peruse the same and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ. ii) Call for the records leading up to the report of the 1st respondent No.C1-8165/85 dated 19/9/2001 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ. iii) Issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ restraining the respondents from further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P7 pending disposal of the original petition. iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the 3rd respondent to accept the tax of the petitioner's property in Survey No.276/1-96 (Re.Sy.No.120/2) in Kombanadu Village, Kunnathunadu Taluk for the year 2002-03 as requested by her by Exhibit P6 application dated 17.3.2003.” 2. On the question of want of notice to the petitioner what is stated in the counter affidavit of the first respondent is as follows:- “It is submitted that Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha as per proceedings No.KDis.6262/97/A5 dated 26.12.1997, ordered the Tahsildar to hear the assignees of PF 11/76 and 13/76 by issuing notices. The O.P.No.12465/2003 4 petitioner has already been heard in this regard for serving the natural justice. A rehearing is unwanted in this case. The assignees were heard and a report to that effect was sent to the Revenue Divisional officer, Muvattupuzha. An order in the matter was awaiting. At that time, the land tax has been collected by the Village Officer. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha ordered to evict the petitioner from the land as per order No.A5-2830/98 dated 7.11.2001. However, this order has only been conveyed to the village officer only on 14.12.2001 and the petitioner in some way managed to remit the tax on 15.12.2001. The Village Officer without knowing the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, accepted the tax.” 3. I am not satisfied that the contention is sustainable. When the matter is remanded for fresh consideration after conducting a detailed enquiry, without notice to the petitioner and without serving a copy of the enquiry report on the petitioner, further proceedings for cancellation of patta could not have been taken by the respondents. In the above circumstances, Ext.P7 is violative of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Ext.P7 is quashed. However, if the respondents still wish to continue proceedings they may do so after affording an opportunity of being heard to O.P.No.12465/2003 5 the petitioner and supplying petitioner with a copy of the report relied on for the purpose of cancelling the patta. Such proceedings if any, shall be initiated and completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE dvs