A relinquishment executed prior to the enforcement of conservation laws remains valid, and allegations of fraud must be substantiated with clear evidence; otherwise, the order stands upheld.

ORDER :

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.

1. This Review Petition is filed by the appellant in RSA No.614/2022 to review the judgment dated 08.08.2024 by which the RSA was dismissed, answering the substantial questions of law against the appellant. The Review Petitioner has filed I.A. No.1/2025, producing Annexure AIV to AXIII, seeking to accept the said documents under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

2. The Review Petition is opposed by the Respondent No.5/Corporation of Kochi by filing a counter affidavit.

3. I heard the learned Senior Counsel for the Review Petitioner, Sri. P. Santhalingam, instructed by Adv. Smt. Sindu Santhalingam, and the learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.5, Sri. V.V. Sidharthan, instructed by Adv. Sri. D.G. Vipin.

4. The Review Petitioner, who was the plaintiff in a suit for declaration, is the appellant in this appeal. Declaration of title was sought with respect to the plaint B schedule property of 1 acre covered by Exts.B1 and B2 Relinquishment executed by the plaintiff in favour of the Defendant No.5 on the ground that the relinquishment is invalid. Plaint B schedule property was part of the plaint A schedule property, which is having an extent of 3 acres 78 cents belonged to the plaintiff per Exts.A1 and A2 title deeds. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff executed Exts.B1 and B2 on the assurance of the Defendant No.5 that they would fill up the remaining land of 2.78 acres belonging to the plaintiff; that the Defendant No.5 filled up only 60% of the land, and that too illegally and without any authority.

5. The Trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit is time-barred; that the relinquishment made by the plaintiff was unconditional and that in view of the decision of this Court in Natarajan R. v. Village Officer, Kanayannur Taluk and Others [2013 (2) KHC 26] , when an unconditional relinquishment is made even though the proceedings are not complete, it operates as complete against the landowner. Though the plaintiff filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. This Court dismissed the RSA, answering the substantial questions of law against the appellant as per the impugned judgment.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the Review Petitioner contended that the Respondent No.5 obtained Exts.B1 & B2 relinquishment of land by committing fraud on the Review Petitioner. The transaction between the Review Petitioner and the Respondent No.5 is hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Review Petitioner agreed to relinquish the plaint B schedule property of 1 acre since the Respondent No.5 assured the reclamation and filling up the remaining 2.78 acres of land. The purpose of the relinquishment of 1 acre is for constructing the Perumpadappu Bus Terminal as revealed from Ext.B1. The land included in Ext.B1 is admittedly a wetland. Going by the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the reclamation of wetland is clearly prohibited. The Respondent No.5 did not have the necessary permission to reclaim the said land. The Review Petitioner was defrauded by the Respondent No.5 misrepresenting that the property could be legally reclaimed and filled up by the Respondent No.5. It is clear from the Vigilance Enquiry Report produced along with I.A. No.1/2025 that the Respondent No.5 did not have any right or authority to reclaim or fill up the aforesaid property of the Review Petitioner. The respondents have suppressed the material documents with respect to the same from the notice of this Court and thus committed fraud on this Court. Fraud vitiates everything. If this Court had knowledge about the fraudulent nature of Exts.B1 and B2, this Court would not h