IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 WA.No. 73 of 2009 ---------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.12843/2007 Dated 19/12/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- K.R. LATHA, W/O. PEETHAMBARAN, BLAVATH HOUSE, JANATHA ROAD, VYTTILA, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN 682 019. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT ERNAKULAM. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, MARADU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. P.J. MARY, PALAPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARADU, NOW RESIDING AT VILAYIL VEEDU, UDAYAMPEROOR ERNAKULAM. 5. RENJITH MON K.R. S/O. K.C. REJIMON, KALPADAKKAL HOUSE, BUND ROAD, VTJ ENCLAVE, VI/472 A, MARADU. ADDL.6. JOB V.POTTAYIL, S/O.LATE P.E.VARKEY, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT POTTAYIL HOUSE, SOUTH MARADU P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. (ADDL.6TH RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 21.12.2009 IN IA 1269 OF 2009) R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.MEERA R4 BY ADV.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SRI.CHERIAN SEBASTIAN FOR R4 R5 BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW R6 BY ADV.SRI.A.T.ANILKUMAR SRI.P.FAZIL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2010, ALONG WITH WA NO. 164 OF 2009 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R.Bannurmath, C.J. & Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. ------------------------------------------ W.A.Nos.73 & 164 of 2009 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. These writ appeals arise from a common judgment passed in two writ petitions. 2. The crux of the contentions between the parties is essentially a dispute as to title to property, which controversies are noted in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment. A civil suit has also been instituted as O.S.No.106 of 2009 before the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam by a person who claims that he is the subsequent purchaser of the property in question. It is also submitted that Indigent O.P. No.1 of 2010 is filed before the Sub Court, Ernakulam, by another party to let him sue as indigent, seeking to set aside the earlier document. These controversies are sufficient enough for the writ court to keep its hands off the W.A.Nos.73 & 164 of 2009 - 2 - controversy. With these disputes on record the revenue authorities including the District Collector exercising powers under the Transfer of Registry Rules could not have come to a legitimate conclusion as to in whose favour the land shall be entered in the land register and other records. Therefore, we completely agree with the views in the impugned judgment that there is nothing to interfere with, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. But, the fact of the matter remains that the revenue authorities had issued certain orders, one way or the other. This could have been even on the basis of the pendency of the Contempt of Court proceedings. 4. It is trite law that a declaratory decree of the civil court would override the actions taken by the revenue authorities when there is dispute as to title. To clear any cloud that may be seen in the proceedings and files, it is ordered that all decisions by the revenue authorities, including the District Collector, in W.A.Nos.73 & 164 of 2009 - 3 - relation to the property in question will stand vacated hereby and land tax if paid by anyone among the parties will be received by showing the Thandaper Account Number and the name of the person from whom payment is received. This is only to acknowledge payment and not to be used as material to decide the dispute. The entry in the revenue records regarding the name of the Thandaper holder would stand ultimately regulated by the decision that the civil court would render in the aforesaid proceedings. Any entries made in the revenue records after the judgment of the learned Single Judge would remain provisional. 5. It is further ordered that the civil court will decide the case untrammelled by anything stated in any proceeding of the revenue authorities including the District Collector or in the judgment of the learned Single Judge as also, anything stated in this judgment, except the clarifications ordered herein. The parties will maintain status quo regarding possession as of now since the civil suit now pending is itself one only for recovery of W.A.Nos.73 & 164 of 2009 - 4 - possession. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge would consider whether it is necessary to consolidate the proceedings referred to above. It is further clarified that this judgment will not stand in the way of any new civil proceedings touching the matter. Writ appeals are disposed of as above. S.R.Bannurmath, Chief Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge vns