IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 WA.No.1310 of 2008 --------------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.2134/2008 Dated 31/03/2008 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- SMT.NESAN MANGALODAYAM, W/O.SRI.P.S.SUNDAR, AGED 52, 13/8, VARTHAKAN VILLAI, BATHEL PURAM, NEYOOR WEST, PIN-629803, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (REVENUE), SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NEYYATTINKARA. 4. THE FEDERAL BANK, CHEMPOOR, NEYYATTINKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.P.SREEKRISHNAN. R4 BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE (MANACHIRACKEL). THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J. ------------------------------------------------------- W.A.No.1310 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 26th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2134 of 2008 dated 31st March, 2008. 2. The first prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary actions to re-construct the pattayam issued to the petitioner in LA.No.II/26/75. The second prayer is to declare that the original pattayam mentioned in Ext.P1 is irrecoverably lost. 3. The learned Single Judge before disposing of the writ petition had issued notice to the respondents. On instruction, the learned Government Advocate had submitted before the learned Single Judge that the records relating to the petitioner's pattayam has been lost, and therefore it is highly impossible to re-construct the records and then issue a copy of the pattayam to the petitioner. 4. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has observed that the Writ Court cannot direct the authorities W.A.No.1310/2008 -2- under the Act to perform an impossible thing and therefore the reliefs sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. 5. Aggrieved by the said observations made by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner is before us in this writ appeal. 6. Sri.G.S.Reghunath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant placing fingers on Rule 22 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 would submit that it is expected of the respondents to keep the records in tact and since they they have lost, the respondents cannot plead that they have lost the records and therefore they are not in a position to give the copy of the pattayam, the original of which was given to the petitioner in the year 1976. 7. We have carefully perused Rule 22 of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. It only says that the Registers and accounts necessary for purposes of these rules shall be duly maintained by the authorities concerned. It further states that the Tahasildar concerned shall maintain a register showing the lands assigned in each Taluk with particulars of the assignee and conduct periodical check to ensure that the conditions of the assignment are not violated. 8. Nowhere in the Rule it is stated for how many years the records has to be kept by the authorities under the Act. Even otherwise W.A.No.1310/2008 -3- also if the original records have been lost, it is impossible for the respondents to re-construct and then give a copy of the same to the petitioner. 9. Sri.G.S.Reghunath, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that, based on Ext.P1 the records should be re-constructed and a copy of the pattayam should be given to the petitioner. The Land Assignment Act or the Land Assignment Rules does not provide for re-construction of any documents in the absence of the original registers. Keeping all these aspects in view, the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition and thereby declined to grant the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. We do not see any error committed by the learned Single Judge which calls for our interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.K.BASHEER) JUDGE MS