Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 46928
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Muhamed Mustaque, HARISANKAR V. MENON, JJ
Sulochana, K.A.Vasu – Appellant
Versus
Laxmi, Rohini, Sridevi, Mani, Kamalakshi, Nandini, Shailaja, Chithra, State of Kerala, The Revenue Divisional Officer, The Tahsildar – Respondent
WA NO. 1240 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 9269 OF 2012
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri.K.I.Mayankutty Mather (SR.), SMT.T.K.SREEKALA, SMT.KALLIYANI KRISHNA B.
For the Respondents: SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN, SMT VINITHA B SR GP
Judicial decisions from past litigation create binding precedents, prohibiting reopening of settled issues by the same parties as an abuse of court process.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 - Sections 2(25) and 75 - Kudikidappukaran entitlement - Jurisdiction of RDO to order shifting of kudikidappu challenged - Previous judgments established res judicata that prevent reopening of settled issues. (Paras 2, 9)
(B) Review of binding decisions - The intrusiveness of subsequent petitions that aim to overturn established legal findings dismissed as an abuse of process. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The legal heirs of Malayan Kannan sought to reopen concluded issues through a writ petition after a history of litigation dating back to 1973, which established the rights of kudikidappukaran under the Act.
Findings of Court:
The appeal was allowed, reiterating that the issues had already been settled through binding judgments and the Writ Petition was an attempt to review these.
Issues: The attempt to reopen settled issues by the same parties led to the primary question of jurisdiction under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the binding nature of previous judgments and confirmed that the current attempt represented an abuse of the legal process.
Result: Writ Appeal allowed and judgment of the learned Single Judge set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. kudikidappukaran entitlement under the kerala land reforms act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. history of litigation regarding kudikidappu shifting. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. previous rulings prevent reopening of already settled matters. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. current writ petition dismissed as an abuse of process. (Para 10) |
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This intra-court appeal is filed by the respondents in the writ petition. The matter has a chequered history dating back to 1973, when the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) passed an order dated 30.04.1973 shifting the kudikidappu from the land comprised in Re. Sy. No. 89/11 of Kasargode Village. Sri. Malayan Kannan was the kudikidappukaran, and Sri. Koragan was the landlord.
2. Under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (for short, "the Act"), a kudikidappukaran is entitled to 10 cents of land. Section 75 of the Act provides that no kudikidappukaran shall be evicted from his kudikidappu. The term kudikidappukaran is defined under Section 2 (25) of the Act as a person who has neither a homestead nor any land in excess of the prescribed ceiling limit is entitled to fixity of kudikidappu. In a Panchayat area, such a kudikiddapukaran is entitled to 10 cents. The land in question was located in the panchayat area.
3. Having found that Malayan Kannan was entitled to fixity of kudikidappu, the landlord, invoking Section 75 (3) of the Act, filed an application before the RDO seeking the shifting of the kudikidappu. Accordingly, the RDO, by order dated 30.04.1973, directed the shifting of the kudikidappu to Re. Sy. No. 122/1 Pt of Kasaragode Village. The Landlord also paid the necessary amount towards the value of the land to acquire the land for the purpose of shifting.
4. Subsequently, a Full Bench of this Court in George v. State of Kerala [ 1981 KHC 112 ] held that the RDO had no jurisdiction to order such shifting and that the Government alone was vested with such power. Challenging the RDO’s order of 30.04.1973, the legal heirs of Malayan Kannan approached this Court with a writ petition in 2012.
5. A learned Single Judge, by judgment dated
25.05.2023, allowed the writ petition relying on the Full Bench judgment in George's Case (Supra). Aggrieved thereby, the legal heirs of Koragan have preferred this appeal.
6. Ordinarily, we would have no hesitation in upholding the judgment of the learned Single Judge if the long- drawn litigation between the parties since 1981 were to be ignored. However, the successive litigations between the same parties must be briefly noted.
(i) O.P. No. 3356 of 1981 – filed by Malayan Kannan challenging the RDO’s order of shifting. Dismissed as withdrawn.
(ii) O.P. No. 7073 of 1982 – again challenged the same order. By judgment dated 01.06.1987, a learned Single Judge dismissed the original petition, noting the delay and holding that the RDO’s jurisdiction could not be reopened at that stage despite the Full Bench ruling in George’s case.
(iii) O.S. No. 317 of 1988 – filed by Malayan Kannan before the Munsiff’s Court, Kasaragode, seeking a declaration that the RDO’s order was a nullity. The suit was decreed.
(iv) A.S. No. 55 of 1992 – preferred by the legal heirs of Koragan before the Sub Judge, Kasaragode. The appeal was dismissed.
(v) S.A. No. 360 of 1996 – filed before this Court.
By judgment dated 22.10.1999, the Second Appeal was allowed, and the suit filed by the legal heirs of Malayan Kannan was dismissed.
7. Thus, the challenge raised by Malayan Kannan and his legal heirs against the RDO’s order was conclusively settled both in writ jurisdiction and in civil proceedings.
8. We note that W.P.C. No. 9269/2012 is nothing but an attempt by the legal heirs of Malayan Kannan to reopen concluded issues. The learned Single Judge, by placing reliance solely on the Full Bench decision in George's Case (supra) has in effect re-examined the matters already settled by binding judgments. This amounts to reopening of issues that stood concluded decades earlier.
9. Learned counsel for t
