IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2011 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 2360 of 2011(T) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. SAJEEVAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, MANGATTU HOUSE, KAKKOOR POST, THIRUMARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. RAJI, S/O.MADHAVAN, MANGATTU HOUSE, KAKKOOR POST, THIRUMARADY VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 3. SARAMMA, W/O.ABRAHAM, KALAPPURAYIL HOUSE, KAKKOOR POST, THIRUMARADY, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THIRUMARADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUMARADY POST, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. * ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM - 682 030. * ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21/02/2011 IN I.A. NO.2769/2011. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SANTHOSH JOSE R2 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 2360 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioners were the owners of property comprised in survey numbers 755/12/1, 755/12/2, 758/12/3 and 755/13/2 in Thirumaradi Village in Muvattupuzha Taluk. Pursuant to the persistent requests made by the Panchayat the petitioners decided to sell 78.5 cents of property to the first respondent Panchayat for the purpose of construction of a public stadium at Kakkur under Janakeeyasoothranam Project 2010-'11. The public interest and purpose of the proposal also prompted the petitioners to take such a decision. Later, the Panchayat passed resolution No.1(5) dated 16.8.2010 for the purpose of purchasing the above extent of land from the petitioners. Admittedly, thereafter, the secretary of the Panchayat forwarded an application to the second respondent for getting the suitability certificate for the purchase of landed property in question from the petitioners as per letter No.A2-2436/2010 dated 23.8.2010. However, pending decision on the said aspect, Sale Deed No.1800/1/10 was registered on 6.9.2010 WPC.NO.2360/2011 : 2 : before the Sub Registry, Kuthattukulam. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the registration of the aforementioned sale deed on 6.9.2010 they are yet to receive the value of the property. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed mainly with a prayer to issue writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the value of the property with interest @12% per annum, from 6.9.2010 till the date of payment. 2. Earlier, the delay in the matter constrained the petitioner to file Ext.P1 representation dated 9.11.2010 before the first respondent. It carries a request for payment of the value of the property or to re-convey the property, in case the Panchayat is not really interested in the transaction. It is still pending before the first respondent. A counter affidavit has been filed in this writ petition on behalf of the second respondent. The factum of receipt of application for getting suitability certificate from the secretary of the Panchayat as per letter dated 23.8.2010 is admitted thereunder. However, it was stated therein: “On verification of the proposal it is seen that the Panchayat have not enclosed the decision for WPC.NO.2360/2011 : 3 : suitability certificate, the certified copy of the sketch furnished by the Village Officer, Thirumarady, Valuation Certificate of the Tahsildar etc.” It if further stated thereunder that in the said circumstances, the Secretary of the panchayat was given instruction to re- submit the proposal along with the documents required for the purpose and in fact, it was in the meanwhile that the above sale deed was executed on 6.9.2010. It is also admitted thereunder that though there was a recital in the said sale deed that the petitioners had received the amount, in troth, the value of the property was not actually disbursed to the petitioners till date. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that on receipt of application for suitability certificate the secretary of the Panchayat was informed that the land in question which is a paddy field could be converted to Pukka land by filling up with soil so as to use it for the proposed stadium construction only after getting approval from the revenue authorities. In short, a perusal of counter affidavit would reveal that the second respondent attributes latches and flow on the part of the Panchayat in respect of the aforesaid transactions. It is alleged that the Panchayat have WPC.NO.2360/2011 : 4 : not complied with the directions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Acquisition and Disposal of Property) Rules, 2005 in purchasing the land in question. Further it is stated thereunder: “In the circumstances a ratification from the Government in the matter is necessary to disburse the cost of land to the petitioners. Proposal for ratification in the matter is already submitted to the Government from this office vide letter No.D1-12745/2010 dated 13.1.2011. Further Instruction in the matter will be issued from this office to the Secretary, Thirumarady Grama Panchayat soon on receipt of ratification from the Government.” In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent certain other defects noticed in the transaction were given as hereunder:- 1. As per rule 5(1) (a) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Acquisition and Disposal of Property Rules 2005 encumbrance certificate for period of 18 years is necessary for every land purchase made by Grama Panchayat. It is not seen obtain from the concerned sub registry office. 2. As per rule 5(1) (d) legal opinion towards ownership of land from the District Government Pleader is necessary. But the same is not obtain by the Grama Panchayat. 3. As per rule 5(3) the sale deed in regard to the purchase of land should be framed in form No.1 prescribed for this purpose but the same is not made in form No.1. 4. On verification of the documents it is seen that the cost of the land is already received by the petitioners. 5. The sale deed framed by the Sub Registrar in the stamp paper do not bears the photograph of the Secretary, Thirumarady Grama Panchayat instead WPC.NO.2360/2011 : 5 : there is a mark of thumb impression but the Secretary reported that she has not put have thumb impression in the document.” 3. It is thus obvious that the petitioners were not receiving the amount payable under the said transaction not on account of any flow on their part. Even the second respondent did not attribute any flow or laches on the petitioners, as is obvious from the counter affidavit. Above all, it is specifically stated in the said counter affidavit that a ratification from the Government in the matter is necessary to disburse the cost of land to the petitioners and for that purpose a proposal for ratification has been submitted as per letter No. D1-12745/2010 dated 13.1.2011. It is still pending consideration. There is also no case for the second respondent that the defects enlisted in Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit are incurable. In fact, it is up to the first respondent to take appropriate steps for curing the defects enlisted in paragraph 8. At the same time, the question whether the transaction in question could be ratified or not based on the proposal submitted as per letter dated 13.1.2011 is still pending before the Government. Taking into account WPC.NO.2360/2011 : 6 : all the said aspects as also the fact that despite the registration of sale deed No. 1800/1/10 dated 6.9.2010 the petitioners are yet to receive the value of the property sold to the Panchayat, this writ petition is disposed of as hereunder: The first respondent shall take appropriate steps for curing all the defects specifically mentioned in Paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Immediately thereafter, all the requisite documents are to be forwarded to the second respondent. In the meanwhile, the question of ratification for which a proposal has already been placed as per letter No.D1-12745/2010 dated 13.1.2011 shall be considered by the Government and appropriate orders thereon shall be passed within the aforesaid period. The whole issue relating the matter shall be concluded at the earliest expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In case of failure to finalise the issue the first respondent shall take appropriate steps for re-conveying the property belonging to the WPC.NO.2360/2011 : 7 : petitioners which was registered under the name of the Panchayat as per sale deed No.1800/1/10 dated 6.9.2010 of Sub Registry, Kuthattukulam, in accordance with law, at the expense of the first respondent. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge