IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 29248 of 2007(F) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER: ------------------ V.P.JACOB, S/O.PORINCHU, AGED 61 YEARS, 649,VADAKKOODAN HOUSE, KUMARANELLOOR P.O., WADAKKANCHERY PIN-680 590, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI P.CHALY RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETRIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE WADAKKANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE,REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 3. THE SECRETARY WADAKKANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,WADAKKANCHERRY,THRISSUR. 4. THE THAHSILDAR, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUMARANELLOOR. 6. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, INSTITUTIONS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR – R1, R4 TO R6 ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) - R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).29248/2007-F APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE EXT.P2: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR 2007-08. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12/05/05. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15/03/06. EXT.P6: COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/07/06. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 06/02/06. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 21/11/06. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16/03/07. EXT.P9(a):COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED 11/04/07. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE ORDER OF 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 05/07/07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 29248 of 2007 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JUNE 16, 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P9 as confirmed by Ext.P10. 2. Briefly put, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is an occupant of 2 cents of land in Sy.No.281 of Kumaranelloor village of Talappilly Taluk. According to the petitioner, it is a Panchayat puramboke and he has been in occupation of the land for the past several years. It is stated by the petitioner that he has constructed a two storied building in which he is running a medical laboratory. Petitioner is referring to Ext.P1 registration that he had obtained and Ext.P2 tax receipt for the payment of building tax. As already stated, on the basis that the land is a Panchayat puramboke, which statement is seriously disputed by the learned Government Pleader contending that the land is a “Sirkar Edavazhi Puramboke”, Ext.P3 application was submitted to the Tahsildar describing the land to be a revenue land and seeking its assignment. Petitioner submits that pursuant to Ext.P3, an enquiry was conducted by the Village WP(C) 29248 of 2007 2 Officer who submitted Ext.P4 report, which is favourable to him. Reference is made to the statement in Ext.P4 that with the consent of the Panchayat and on payment of market value, the land could be considered for assignment. 3. The learned Government Pleader submits that as a part of the procedure for assignment of Government puramboke land, the matter was forwarded to the Panchayat for consent and that the Panchayat accorded its consent by Ext.P5. It is stated that, however, realising that the land in question was needed for its future developmental activities, the Panchayat revoked its consent by Ext.P6. In the meantime, the Taluk Land Assignment Committee passed Ext.P7, resolving to assign the land to the petitioner. However, as the consent by the Panchayat was revoked by Ext.P6 and as the proposal for assignment was conditional on the Panchayat also consenting for the same, petitioner filed an appeal against Ext.P6 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, as Appeal No.379/2006. The appeal was considered by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and by Ext.P8 order, the appeal was disposed of setting aside Ext.P6 without prejudice to the WP(C) 29248 of 2007 3 authority of the Panchayat Committee to take a fresh decision after rendering an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the other affected parties. 4. Petitioner contends that the Panchayat had not issued any notice to him as directed by the Tribunal in Ext.P8 and that the Panchayat unilaterally reconsidered the matter and passed Ext.P9 resolution reiterating its stand in ExtP6. Against Ext.P9, petitioner again filed an appeal to the Tribunal as Appeal No.176/2007. The appeal was heard by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and by Ext.P10, the appeal was dismissed. It is challenging Exts.P9 and P10 this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 5. As already noticed, though there is a serious controversy about the nature of the land viz. as to whether it is a Revenue puramboke or a Pancnhayat puramboke, I do not think a resolution of that controversy is necessary for the disposal of this writ petition. In this writ petition all that this court need be concerned is about the correctness of Ext.P9 as confirmed by Ext.P10. 6. The main contention that is raised by the counsel for the WP(C) 29248 of 2007 4 petitioner is that while disposing of Appeal No.379/2006 by Ext.P8 order, the Tribunal had directed that before fresh orders are passed, the petitioner as also the other interested parties should be heard by the Panchayat. Ext.P9 is the resolution passed by the Panchayat as directed by the Tribunal. It is the specific case of the petitioner that before passing Ext.P9, he was not issued any notice or other intimation. The Panchayat has not produced anything to conclude to the contrary. If that be so, I should accept the case of the petitioner that Ext.P9 resolution was passed by the Panchayat without issuing notice to the petitioner as directed in Ext.P8. 7. This aspect of the matter was canvassed before the Tribunal while considering Appeal No.176/2007 filed by the petitioner against Ext.P9. However, the Tribunal has overruled this contention for the reason that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity for full hearing before the Tribunal itself. In my view, the irregularity of denial of hearing at the original stage cannot be cured even if the party aggrieved has been afforded an opportunity of hearing at the appellate stage. Since Ext.P9 order was passed without hearing the petitioner as directed in Ext.P8 WP(C) 29248 of 2007 5 order of the Tribunal, Ext.P9 deserves to be set aside. Consequently Ext.P10 confirming Ext.P9 also has to be set aside. Accordingly, quashing Exts.P9 and P10, this writ petition is disposed of directing that it will be open to the respondent Panchayat to reconsider the matter as directed in Ext.P8 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-