IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 35327 of 2004(E) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. JOSEPH MATHEW, VARIKKIYIL HOUSE, MANKULAM, DEVIKOLAM TALUK. 2. THANKAPPAN NARAYANAN, CHERAPLACKAL HOUSE MANKULAM, DEVIKOLAM. (PETITIONERS 1 AND 2 REP.BY THEIR DULY CONSTITUTED POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.T.M. VARGHESE,S/O.MATHAI, AGED 51 YEARS, THARAMUTTATH HOUSE, IRUTTUKANAM, ANAVERATTY P.O., DEVIKOLAM TALUK) BY ADV. SRI.RAJU K.MATHEWS RESPONDENT: --------------- THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI, CIVIL STATION, PAIANVU, IDUKKI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ABOVE PATTA NO.LA15/97/B1 DT.27.6.1997 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ABOVE PATTA NO.LA 23/97/B1 DATED 21.10.1997 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY FO THE JUDGMENT DT.18.11.1998 IN O.P.9545/1998. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED IN O.P.7220/2001 BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.20.3.2001, IN O.P.7220/2001. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2-4310/2000 DT.1.8.2001, ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B2-4310/2000 DT.1.8.2001, ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P8: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT.21.12.2001 INO.P.25042/2001. EXT.P9: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C2-1310/2000 DT.27.3.2002 ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF ONE DEVASIA THOMAS CHALIL MANKULAM. EXT.P10: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.5.4.2002 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P11: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.12.7.2004 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT ON REGISTRY ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER ON 27.1.2005. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C).No.35327 OF 2004 ------------------------------------ Dated this, the 27th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioners are assignees of land under Kannan Devan Hills (Reservation and Assignment of Vested Land) Rules 1977. Exts.P1 and P2 are respectively the pattas granted in favour of the petitioners 1 and 2. Condition No.1 in those pattas reads as follows: “1. The full right over all the trees within the grant and specified in the schedule Vests in the Government subject to rule 18 of the Kannan Devan Hills (Reservation and Assignment of vested lands) Rule 1977 and the Assignee is bound to take care of all such trees standing on the land at the time of assignment or that may came into existence subsequent to it.” Rule 18 mentioned therein of the Kannan Devan Hills (Reservation and Assignment of Vested Lands) Rules, 1977 (herein after referred to as 'the Rules') reads as follows: W.P.(C) No.35327/2004 :-2-: “18. Tree value to be paid by the assignee:- The full proprietory right over all trees standing at the time of assignment, and over the reserved trees whether standing at the time of assignment or coming into existence subsequently, in the assigned area shall vest in the Government. But the assignee may purchase such trees on payment of value at the prevailing seigniorage rates failing which they may be disposed of by the Collector after due publicity.” 2. The petitioners on 19.1.2000 and 12.1.2000 moved the 1st respondent, District Collector, stating that the trees standing on the property assigned to them are in a very dangerous condition and therefore, requesting for permission to cut and remove the same on payment of seigniorage rate prevailing at the time of assigning the land. The said applications were forwarded by the 1st respondent to the Tahsildar, Devikulam, to enquire and report. According to the petitioners, the Tahsildar reported that several of the trees are either decayed or dead and are therefore, dangerous to life and property. When their applications remained without disposal, they moved this Court by filing O.P.No.7220/2001. The said Original Petition was heard and disposed of, along with W.P.(C) No.35327/2004 :-3-: O.P.No.6587/2001, by Ext.P5 common judgment dated 20.3.2001. The said Original Petition was disposed of with the following direction: “It is seen that this Court in O.P.No.3105/2000 directed the respondent to dispose of the application within a specified time and also directed the respondent to fix the seigniorage rate in accordance with the directions of this Court in O.P.No.9545/1998. In O.P.No.6587/2001 three petitioners have filed Exhibits P8, P10 and P12 representations before the respondent. Similarly, the petitioners in O.P.No.7220/2001 have filed Exts.P5 and P6 representations. Since it is stated that these representations are pending before the respondent, there will be a direction to the respondent, to dispose of the said representations within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The respondent will fix the seigniorage rate in accordance with the directions of this Court in O.P.No.9545/1998, if this petitions are allowed.” 3. While disposing of the said Original Petition, the learned Single Judge relied on an earlier judgment of this Court in O.P.No.9545/1998, a copy of which is produced as Ext.P3. In W.P.(C) No.35327/2004 :-4-: that case, a learned Judge of this Court took the view that the assignees of land are not entitled to get the trees at seigniorage rate prevailing at the time of assignment of the land. Pursuant to the direction in Ext.P3, the applications of the petitioners were rejected by Exts.P6 and P7. A reading of the orders would show that their applications were not even considered on merits, because the claim made by them for purchase of the trees at seigniorage rate prevailing at the time of assignment was contrary to the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules. Challenging Exts.P6 and P7 the Writ Petition is filed. 4. The petitioners pointed out that the applications of the petitioners in O.P.No.6587/2001, which was disposed of along with O.P.No.7220/2001 filed by the petitioners herein, were also rejected by the District Collector by orders similar to Exts.P6 and P7. The petitioners therein challenged that order before this Court by filing O.P.No.25042/2001. By Ext.P8, this Court allowed the Original Petition and in obedience to the direction in Ext.P8, the District Collector has passed Ext.P9 consequential order. In view of above developments, the petitioners prayed for allowing this Writ Petition also. W.P.(C) No.35327/2004 :-5-: 5. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit and they resisted the applications contending that Exts.P3 and P5 judgments were rendered contrary to the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules and therefore, this Court may decline to follow those decisions. Going by Rule 18 quoted above, the contention of the learned Government Pleader that Ext.P3 does not lay down the correct legal position has to be accepted. Since Ext.P5 was rendered following Ext.P3, there may be some illegality in that decision also. But, it being an inter-parte decision, even if, it is demonstrably wrong, the respondents herein are bound to follow that. A judgment of the High Court, even if, it is irregular or wrong, it cannot be ignored in subsequent proceedings. It can be corrected only in appeal or in review. The learned author H.W.R.Wade in his Administrative Law, 9th Edition, under Part IV, 'Problems of Invalidity' said : “The order of a superior court, such as the High Court, must always be obeyed, no matter what flaws it may be thought to contain. Thus a party who disobeys a High Court injunction is punishable for contempt of court even though it was granted in proceedings deemed to have W.P.(C) No.35327/2004 :-6-: been irrevocably abandoned owing to the expiry of a time limit.” The learned author while making the above statement has relied on the statement of Lord Diplock in Isaac v. Robertson [1985 (AC) 97] which reads as follows: “The contrasting legal concepts of voidability form part of the English law of contract. They are inapplicable to orders made by a court of unlimited jurisdiction in the course of contentious litigation. Such an order is either irregular or regular. If it is irregular it can be set aside by the court that made it upon application to that court; if it is regular it can only be set aside by an appellate court upon appeal if there is one to which an appeal lies.” 6. We respectfully endorse the above legal position. Therefore, the collateral challenge against Ext.P5 made the learned Government Pleader cannot accepted. Therefore, we quash Exts.P6 and P7 and remit it to the District Collector for fresh decision in accordance with law. But, it is clarified that it is not mandatory for the District Collector to decide to sell the W.P.(C) No.35327/2004 :-7-: trees to the petitioners. But, the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that in the case of a neighbouring land owner, the District Collector has decided to sell the trees and therefore, the same decision may be taken in their case also. It is a matter to be decided by the District collector, after hearing the petitioners. Accordingly, the District Collector is directed to hear the petitioners and take a fresh decision on the question of sale of the trees. If it is decided to sell the trees, the same shall be sold at the seigniorage rate prevailing at the time of assignment of the land. This direction will remain in force, until Ext.P5 is modified or set aside in appeal or review, as the case may be. The Writ Petition is allowed as above. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps