IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2011 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 2924 of 2010(M) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER : - ---------------------- M.V.MANI, S/O.VARKEY, AGED 68 YEARS, MOOLAMATTATHIL VEEDU, KUTTAMANGALAM VILLAGE, PIRAKUNNAM KARA, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHNSON MATHEW MANAYANI SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SRI.M.D.SASIKUMAR SRI.GEORGE MATHEW SRI.DIPU JAMES SRI.ARUN ALEX RESPONDENTS : - ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIOINER, OLD BOARD OF REVENUE OFFICE, MUSEUM ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI. 4. THE SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU, IDUKKI. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 6. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI. 7. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANAVIRATTI, IDUKKI 8. DR.K.M.RAMANANDAN I.A.S, LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, OLD BOARD OF REVENUE OFFICE, MUSEUM ROAD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SUSHEELA BHATT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 2924 of 2010(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT P1 : COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 38 DATED 14.01.1966. EXT P2 : COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO. 1 DATED 04.10.1991. EXT P3 : COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO. 37 DATED 23.10.2000. EXT P4 : COPY OF PETITION DATED NIL. EXT P5 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 05.11.08. EXT P6 : COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24.12.2008. EXT P7 : COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 05.02.2009. EXT P8 : COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 25.02.2009. EXT P9 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.04.2009. EXT P10 : COPY OF THE REPORT AND SKETCH DATED 11.06.2009. EXT P11 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.11.2009. EXT P12 : COPY OF SALE DEED. EXT P13 : COPY OF THE SKETCH PERTAINING TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/- ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 2924 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P11, an order passed by the 2nd respondent. 2. Petitioner claims that he originally had title over 2 acres of land in Sy.No.412 of Vellathuval Village. It is stated that after acquisition of 40 cents by the Telecom Department he was left with 1.60 Acres. Subsequently since the bifurcation of the village, the area in question is within the Anaviratti Village. Later, on resurvey, the area in his possession was found to be one acre and 20 cents. The reduction in the area was objected by filing representations which resulted in Ext.P6 report made by the Taluk Surveyor. In that report it was confirmed that the area in the possession of the petitioner was 1 acre and 20 cents. In other words, according to the petitioner, on account of resurvey there was a reduction of 40 cents of W.P.(C) No. 2924 OF 2010 :2 : his land. 3. Objecting to such reduction, he made Ext.P8 representation to the 2nd respondent. In Ext.P9 judgment rendered by this court in WPC 10483/09 Ext.P8 representation was ordered to be dealt with. Petitioner says that after obtaining Ext.P10 report and sketch from the 7th respondent, he was heard by the Land Revenue Commissioner. It is his specific case that after he was heard, the then officer was transferred and that without affording him any further opportunity of hearing, his successor in office, namely the 8th respondent passed Ext.P11 order. In Ext.P11 order it is held that the petitioner was actually in possession of only 1.08 acres of land and that only 39 cents in his possession is Government Puramboke. It is also stated that 15 cents of land is in the possession of strangers. In other words, as against 1.20 acres mentioned in Ext.P6, in Ext.P11 it is held that the petitioner has only 1.08 cents. 4. Although, counsel for the petitioner has several contentions regarding merits of the case, as already seen W.P.(C) No. 2924 OF 2010 :3 : one of the contentions raised by the petitioner is that the officer who passed Ext.P11 order did not hear him. This factual assertion of the petitioner is not contradicted in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. Consequently, the only conclusion that is possible is that Ext.P11 has been passed violating the principles of natural justice and for that reason, Ext.P11 is quashed. 5. It is directed that the 2nd respondent will issue notice to the petitioner and others, hear them and pass fresh orders on Ext.P8 as directed by this court in Ext.P9 judgment. This, the 2nd respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ul/- [true copy] P.S. to Judge