IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 17687 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.SASIDHARAN,S/O.KUNJULAKSHMY WARASYAR, THOTTEKKATU VARIYAM,PULPATTA POST, MANJERI. BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.K.C.KIRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,MALAPPURAM. 2. THE TAHSILDAR,ERNAD,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. VILLAGE OFFICER,PULPETTA,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. K.P.SURENDRAN,SREE DURGA BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE,THOTTEKKAD,PULPETTA.P.O,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. PRESIDENT,MANAGING COMMITTEE, SREE DURGA BHAGAVATHY TEMPLE,THOTTEKKAD, PULPETTA,MANJERI. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1 TO 3 SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN FOR R4&5 SMT.P.G.BABITHA FOR R4&5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C)17687 /2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Ext.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LAND TRIBUNAL, MALAPPURAM DATED 11.03.1997 Ext.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM FOR RECEIPT OF RENT FROM THE FAMILY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 14.12.1956. Ext.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE DEVASWOM FOR RECEIPT OF RENT FROM THE FAMILY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 01.11.1957. Ext.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF BASIC TAX DATED 02.12.2009. Ext.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT AND OTHERS DATED 04.02.2008. Ext.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, PULPATTA DATED 29.09.2008. Ext.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY TAHSILDAR, ERNAD DATED 18.12.2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : Nil ss/. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.BHAVADASAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WP(C) No.17687 of 2010-I ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dated 24th November 2010 Judgment Thottathil.B.Radhakrishnan, J. The petitioner says that he is in occupation of a building and that he is entitled to the benefit of Ext.P1 purchase certificate issued under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. He claims to be in exclusive possession of the property covered by that document. We note that the land originally belonged to the Devaswom. The impugned action is taken by the Tahsildar, acting on a complaint filed by respondents 4 and 5. We do not find any jurisdiction for the Tahildar in terms of the laws relating to lands in Kerala to pass any order which may determine the disputed questions of possession, title, right of entry etc. If the plea of respondents 4 and 5 is that the property belongs to the temple, that is a matter to be agitated elsewhere and not before the Tahsildar. We are clear for ourselves that the Tahsildar did not have jurisdiction to entertain the matter at WPC 17687/10 2 all. Therefore, it does not make any difference whether he passed the impugned order after hearing the parties or without doing so. In the result, without expressing anything on the merits of the rival claims of the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5, the impugned order is quashed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, leaving the parties with liberty to agitate their grievances before the appropriate authorities, particularly the courts and leaving open all other issues. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. THOTTATHIL.B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE sta WPC 17687/10 3 WPC 17687/10 4