Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47842
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. DIAS, J
THE POTHENCODE BLOCK PANCHAYAT – Appellant
Versus
ABDUL KALAM – Respondent
OP(C)/2505/2021
G.RAJEEV, REJITH RAJENDRAN, BINCY JOB, AJITH KUMAR, R.S.KALKURA, SMT.SYLAJA
A Block Panchayath is a necessary party in a title dispute when it has a vested interest in the property, as established by the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act.
Headnote:
Panchayath - Impleading Application - Kerala Panchayath Raj Act - Sections 4(b), 167 - Court held that the Block Panchayath is a necessary party to the suit as it has a vested interest in the property.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Block Panchayath, sought to be impleaded in a suit regarding property title claimed by the respondents. The court below had denied this application, stating the petitioner lacked a cause of action.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Block Panchayath has a legitimate interest in the property, being a stakeholder, which necessitated its involvement in the suit.
Issues: Whether the Block Panchayath should be allowed to join the lawsuit regarding property title claims made by the respondents against the government.
Ratio Decidendi: The Block Panchayath is entitled to join the proceedings as it possesses significant interest over the property in question, warranting its inclusion to ensure a fair adjudication.
Final Decision: The court set aside the previous order, allowed the petitioner to be impleaded, and mandated that the suit proceeds in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order in IA No.13/2021 in OS No.44/2020 (Ext P7) passed by the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge-I, Thiruvananthapuram, the impleading petitioner Panchayath is before this Court.
2. The petitioner’s case, shorn of exhaustive pleadings, in the original petition is that: the petitioner is a Block Panchayath falling within the purview of Article 243(c) of the Constitution of India and established under Sec.4(b) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act , 1994. The respondents 1 to 9 have filed Ext P1 plaint, inter alia, to declare their title over the plaint schedule property. The court below has passed Ext P2 order directing the parties to maintain status-quo. The thirteenth respondent – the Director of Panchayath –
has sent a letter to the first respondent stating that though the plaint schedule property used to situate within the territorial limits of Kazhakkoottam Grama Panchayath earlier, now it falls within the territorial limits of the Municipal Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram and, therefore, they are unable to file a written statement and the Director of Urban Affairs may be impleaded as a party. The plaint schedule property is in the absolute ownership, possession and enjoyment of the petitioner for quite some time. The offices of the petitioner and other Government Departments are situated in the said property. The Basic Tax Register of Kazhakkoottam Village Office substantiates that the petitioner is in ownership of the property and is paying the land tax as seen in Ext P4. Upon learning the fact that the respondents 1 to 9 have filed the above suit, the petitioner filed Ext P5 application to get itself impleaded in the suit. The first respondent objected to the same by filing Ext P6 counter statement. The court below, by the impugned Ext P7 order, has dismissed Ext P5 application. Ext P7 is erroneous and improper.
Hence, the original petition.
3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of himself and the respondents 2 to 9. He has denied the allegations in the original petition. He has contended that the plaint schedule property belongs to the respondents 1 to 9. The respondents 10 to 13 have filed a written statement in the suit stating that the necessary party is the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram and the records pertaining to the property are not available with them. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have a better case than the respondents 10 to 13. The respondents 1 to 9 are the dominus litus. The impugned order is correct and, hence, the original petition may be dismissed.
4. The District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram –
the twelfth respondent in the original petition -- has filed a statement, inter alia, contending that the plaint schedule property having an extent of 38.15 Ares in Block No.II in Kazhakkoottam Village is ‘Sarkar Puramboke’ and is marked as Block Office. The Pothencode Block Panchayath Office, the Sub Treasury, Kazhakkoottam, Minor Irrigation Assistant Engineer Office, Diary Extension Office, SC Development Office, Women and Child Welfare Office and Veterinary Hospital are situated and are functioning in the plaint schedule property. No person has staked any claim over the property until the respondents 1 to 9 have filed the suit. The State Legislature has accorded a budgetary sanction of Rs.38/- Crore, to construct a ten storied Civil Station building in the property. Administrative sanction has been accorded as per G.O (Rt) No.27/2021/RD dated 8.1.2021 and the Government have already approved to tender the work. Form No.1 shows that it is a ‘Sarkar Puramboke’ land.
Hence, the original petition may be allowed in terms of the statement.
5. Heard; Sri.Thonnakkal G.Rajeev, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.R.S Kalkura, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 9 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 10 to 13.
6. The point is whether there is any error or illegality in Ext P7 order.
7. The responden
