IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 14505 of 2007(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- ROYAL HOSPITAL PRIVATE LTD., KOZHIKODE, REP.BY ITS DIRECTOR, DR.P.K.CHACKO. BY ADV. MR.MILLU DANDAPANI RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KOOTTOOLY VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. SHRI FASALU, S/O.HYDEU HAJI, PERUMBULYPATTU PAYYURAYIL, MYLATHUR, CHAVAKKAD. 4. SHRI ANWAR, S/O.HYDEU HAJI, PERUMBULYPATTU PAYYURAYIL, VADAKKEKKAD AMSOM, MYLATHUR DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. * ADDL. RESPONDENTS 5 & 6 IMPLEADED ADDL.R5: MANGADAN PARAMBATH LAND PROMOTERS (P) LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, M.P. SHAMSUDHEEN, RESIDING AT ANAMANGAD AMSOM, PUNNAKODE DESOM, PERINTHALMANNA, MANALAYA-679 357. ADDL.R6: PATTIYERI NARENDRAN, POOPARAMBIL, PATTIYERI GARDEN, CHERUPPU, KUTTIKADAVE, KOZHIKODE. * ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 5 & 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07/11/2007 IN I.A.14615/2007. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V. MANU. R3 & R4 BY ADV. MR.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS. ADDL. R5 BY ADV. MR.ANIL SIVARAMAN. ADDL. R6 BY ADV. MR.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, MR.DEEPU LAL MOHAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 14505/2007-B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 12/07/1994 IN OS. NO.588/1993 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, KOZHIKODE. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE VIDE NO.KDIS.255/93/89D DATED 07/08/1993 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23/09/2006 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT REFERRED TO IN THE WRIT PETITION. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION FORWARDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 24/11/2006. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 18/10/2006. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.34/2006 DATED 23/01/2007 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L2.41348/06 DATED 26/04/2007 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................... W.P.(C).14505/2007 ....................... Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P7, an order passed by the District Collector. Ext.P3 is an order passed by the Village Officer, allowing possession certificate to the petitioner in respect of 29.70 cents of land, owned by the petitioner and situated in R.S.No.5/3C of Koottooly Village. Against this order, respondents 3 and 4 filed an appeal. Similarly another appeal was also filed by respondents 3 and 4 aggrieved by the order passed by the Village Officer cancelling the possession certificate issued to them in respect of 1.61 acres of land, over which they claimed ownership. 2. By Ext.P7 order, the District Collector disposed of both these appeals and has passed the following order. “The respondents in this case has produced basic tax receipts paid from 98.99 onwards for an extent of 29.70 cents of land as the balance W.P.(C).14505/07 2 portion of land in their possession. Nobody challenged the right over the 29.70 cents of land till the sale deed executed in favour of Fasalu and Anwar. Hence, I find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Village Officer Kottoli on 23.9.06 allowing possession right over an extent 29.70 cents of land in R.S.5.3C in favour of Royal Hospital authorities. The second contention challenging the cancellation of possession certificate issued in favour of the appellants as per the order of Village Officer, Kottoli dated 23.1.07 deserve merit. The Village Officer should have verified the physical possession of property in accordance with law before the cancellation of the possession certificate already issued to the appellants. Hence, the order issued by the Village Officer, Kottooli dated 23.1.07 in 34/06 is hereby cancelled and directed to issue possession certificate to the appellants in accordance with law.” 3. The basis on which the petitioner has challenged this order is that the possession certificate, in respect of 29.70 cents W.P.(C).14505/07 3 of land owned by them, is cancelled. This is factually incorrect. The order itself show that the District Collector has upheld the possession certificate. That apart, in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents also they have taken the stand that the possession certificate has been confirmed by the District Collector in the appeal filed by respondents 3 and 4. Petitioner has no case that they have ownership over any extent of land more than 29.70 cents. From a reading of Ext.P7, it is evident that Ext.P2 possession certificate covering the full area has been preserved. If that be the position, I see no reason why the petitioner should be aggrieved by Ext.P7. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs