SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 273

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
Njanasekhar, S/o. Late Joseph @ Kalimuthu - Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) NO. 18172 OF 2019
Decided On : 11-03-2025

Advocates Appeared:
BY ADVS.JOHNY K.GEORGE ATHULYA MARTIN(K/495/2019)
SRI. JAFFER KHAN Y, SR. GP

IMPORTANT POINT
A writ of mandamus requires a legal right and statutory duty, and cannot be issued contrary to law.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 - Writ petition seeking to quash the District Collector's order rejecting land assignment - Petitioners claimed possession of land since 1967, but evidence was insufficient - The Collector found no prior occupation before 01.01.1977, as required by law - The petitioners' claims were based on disputed documents, which the court found unreliable. (Paras 1 , 5 , 21 , 34 )

(B) Writ of Mandamus - Legal right requirement - A writ can only be granted when there is a statutory duty imposed and failure to perform that duty - The court emphasized that no mandamus can be issued contrary to law. (Paras 29 , 30 , 31 )

Facts of the case:

The petitioners, belonging to a Scheduled Caste, claimed to have been in possession of 4 Acres of land since 1967. Their applications for land assignment were rejected by the District Collector, citing lack of evidence of occupation before 01.01.1977. (Paras 2 , 7 , 21 )

Findings of Court:

The court upheld the District Collector's decision, stating that the petitioners failed to provide reliable evidence of land occupation prior to the statutory cutoff date. (Paras 34 , 35 )

Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioners were entitled to land assignment and the validity of the documents they presented. (Paras 11 , 34 )

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioners did not demonstrate legal entitlement to the land under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, as their claims were based on documents deemed unreliable. (Paras 21 , 35 )

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.

The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P7 order dated 07.08.2016 of the 2 nd respondent District Collector, Idukki and a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to assign the petitioners 4 Acres of land in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village, which is under the exclusive possession of the petitioners.

2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the petitioners belong to a Scheduled Caste community, namely, Hindu Pallan. They are in absolute possession and enjoyment of 4 Acres of revenue land comprised in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village. Their father, Joseph @ Kalimuthu, served as a Soldier in the Indian Army from 1943 to 1946. He had obtained possession over 4 Acres of land comprised in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village during the year 1967. He cultivated the said land with seasonal crops like lemon grass, tapioca and vegetables.

3. In the writ petition, it is stated that the 4 th respondent Village Officer had issued possession certificates to the petitioners’ father on 18.02.1969 and 22.08.1992. The document marked as Ext.P1 is a copy of certificate No.410/92 dated 22.08.1992 issued by the 4 th respondent Village Officer, Chinnakanal, wherein it is stated that Joseph, S/o.Chathan, a resident of Singukandam Kara, Suryanelli, Chinnakanal Village is in possession and enjoyment of 4 (four) Acres of Revenue land in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village, in which he is cultivating lemon grass, coffee, plantain, youkali, etc., from 1969 onwards. A sketch of the property is also produced as part of Ext.P1 certificate.

4. According to the petitioners, their father submitted an application for the assignment of land before the Taluk Office, as evident from Ext.P2 postal acknowledgement card, which bears the signature of the Special Tahsildar (Land Assignment) made on 08.10.1991. After the death of the petitioners’ father, being the legal heirs, they made applications for assignment as Application Nos.1495/2000 and 1496/2000 respectively. Based on the said applications, the petitioners were summoned to appear in the office of the Survey Superintendent of Survey and Land Records (Land Assignment), Rajakkad, on 13.03.2001 at 10.00 p.m., to provide the details for preparing records after surveying the land. The documents marked as Exts.P3 and P3(a) are the postcards issued from the said office in respect of Application Nos.1495/2000 and 1496/2000. In the year 2003, when the 3 rd respondent Tahsildar, Udumbanchola Taluk and the 4 th respondent Village Officer, Chinnakanal, along with their men, came to the property and threatened to evict the petitioners, the 1 st petitioner filed O.S.No.108 of 2003 before the Munsiff Court, Devikulam, a suit for injunction. The document marked as Ext.P4 is a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.108 of 2003, dated 10.04.2003. That suit was dismissed for default on costs, on 14.12.2005, due to the absence of the plaintiff, the 1 st petitioner herein, as evident from Ext.P4 judgment. In paragraph 5 of the writ petition, it is stated that during the pendency of the above suit, the 2 nd petitioner submitted an application before the 3 rd respondent Tahsildar, for the issuance of patta in the prescribed form. The wife of the 1 st petitioner has also submitted an application before the Tahsildar. In paragraph 6 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioners again submitted applications in the year 2010, before the 3 rd respondent Tahsildar, as application Nos.803/2010 and 804/2010. However, without considering the pendency of the said applications, the 4 th respondent Tahsildar threatened to evict the petitioners from the property.

5. According to the petitioners, their father obtained possession over 4 Acres of land comprised in Sy.No.34/1 of Chinnakanal Village during the year 1967. After the death of their father, the property was under the absolute possess


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top