Court judgments bind authorities strictly; cannot add unstated conditions like limiting re-conveyance to legal heirs.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 25^th day of March, 2026 This writ petition has been filed challenging Exts P7, P8 and P9 orders passed by the District Collector and Tahsildar, Pattambi respectively. The case of the petitioners is that they are the joint owners of a property having an extent of 30 cents comprised in Sy. No.218/1C/1A of Chalissery Village. They obtained possession and ownership of the said property as per Ext.P1 sale deed in the year 2009.

2. In 1995, the father of the 2ndpetitioner, P.K. Vasu, had availed a loan of ₹1,75,000 from the Palakkad Division of the Kerala State Housing Board. As security for the said loan, he mortgaged 16.5 cents of property. Subsequently, he defaulted in repayment, and the Tahsildar, Ottapalam, proceeded to attach another property having an extent of 50 cents, instead of the mortgaged property.

3. It is the contention of the petitioners that, prior to such attachment, the said property had already been sold to one Manikandhan and Binu in the year 1997, and that the petitioners had purchased 30 cents out of the said 50 cents. However, the Government subsequently purchased the entire 50 cents as bought-in land in the year 2004.

4. The steps taken by the Government to realise the loan under Section 50 of the Revenue Recovery Act were challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.19795 of 2015. By judgment dated 21.08.2015, this Court disposed of the writ petition, directing that necessary re-conveyance shall be executed in favour of the petitioners by the District Collector, Palakkad, or any competent officer under him, within a period of three months. The petitioners were also directed to bear the necessary expenses, including any incidental expenses incurred for revenue recovery, prior to such re-conveyance.

5. Since the judgment, Ext.P2 was not acted upon due to certain ambiguities in the directions, the petitioners filed a review petition before this Court as R.P. No.24 of 2017 . By order dated 25.01.2017, the review petition was allowed, and it was clarified that the purchase of the land as bought-in land by the Government stands set aside. Consequently, it was declared that the revenue authorities shall act upon the said declaration and effect necessary corrections in the revenue records reflecting the ownership of the petitioners. The registering authority was also directed to make necessary changes in accordance with the said declaration.

6. However, the consequential orders passed by the District Collector and the Tahsildar created a contentious issue. In the said order, the District Collector directed the subordinate authorities to convey the property, in accordance with the judgment, only to the legal heirs of the deceased P.K. Vasu. However, it is contended that no such condition is stipulated in the judgment. The direction in the judgment is only to re-convey the property to the petitioners.

7. In response to the contentions, the learned Government Pleader submitted that, by the time the impugned order was issued, P.K. Vasu had already passed away, and it was under such circumstances that the re- conveyance was directed to be effected only in favour of the legal heirs of the deceased P.K. Vasu.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the additional 6^th and 7^th respondents also raised objections, contending that, since P.K. Vasu had expired on 22.05.2017, the property ought to be conveyed to his legal heirs. 9. I have heard Ms.Bhadra Kumari, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Mable C Kurian, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 5, Sri.Rajesh Sivaramankutty, the learned counsel for the additional 6^th respondent and Sri. P.K. Mohanan for the additional 7^th respond