E.SachidananthaGopalakrishnan v. THE VILLAGE OFFICER

7

claiming that it falls part of 'tharissu bhoomi' or 'puramboke land'; and thus, that the controversy came before this Court in two earlier writ petitions, namely W.P.(C)No.30677/2021 and W.P.(C)No.16088/2021, wherein, the petitioner herein had made allegations against the Panchayat, as also certain Police officials, alleging that he was being harassed when he tried to use the property for charitable purpose.

5. The petitioner adds that a learned Judge of this Court disposed of the afore two writ petitions through judgment dated 19.08.2022, directing the District Collector to consider the validity of the Order of Assignment in his favour, based on the statutory Revisions filed by the Panchayat; and to take a decision thereon, within six weeks.

6. That said, against the order of the Tahsildar dated 10.03.2016, a Revision appears to have been filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and he issued an order against the petitioner, which is impugned by him in the first of the afore writ petitions, namely W.P.(C)No.36566/2022, marking it therein as Exhibit.P16.

8

7. It transpires that, by then, pursuant to the aforesaid directions in the judgment in WP(C)Nos.30677/2021 and 16088/2022, the District Collector heard the parties and issued an order dated 09.12.2022, finding that assignment of land, as also the aforementioned order of the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner, were incompetent and liable to be interfered with; and the petitioner has thus challenged the same, producing it as Ext.P17, in WP(C)No.41944/2022.

8. In the meanwhile, allegations were impelled by the petitioner, that the Panchayat and its affiliates were causing harassment to him, while using the property and he consequently filed WP(C)No.42848/2022 seeking Police protection.

9. While so, a Possession Certificate had been issued to the petitioner with respect to the property in question, based on the aforesaid Order of Assignment and the order of the Tahsildar, which was subsequently cancelled; thus leading him to file the fourth among the afore Writ Petitions, namely WP(C)No.3641/2023, assailing the order to such effect, producing it as Ext.P4 therein.

9

10. I have heard Sri.G.Hariharan - learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.S.Nirmal - learned counsel appearing for the Perumatty Grama Panchayat and Sri.Riyal Devassy - learned Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents.

11. A close look at the afore narrative of facts would render it indubitable that the real controversy in these cases is as to the validity of the assignment of land in favour of the petitioner; and if the Tahsilar had acted correctly in issuing order dated 10.03.2016, allowing a separate survey number being allotted to it, leading to its subsequent transfer of Registry in the later years.

12. The petitioner, through his learned counsel - Sri.G.Hariharan, vehemently maintains that the assignment of land in his favour was made validly as early as in the year 2002, as is evident from Ext.P1 produced in WP(C)No.36566/2022 and that therefore, the order of the Tahsildar dated 10.03.2016 was only a consequential one, allotting a sub division number, thus permitting him to remit Land Tax thereon. He asserts that the entire sale consideration for the land had been remitted to the

10

Government much earlier, but that none of these aspects have been considered by the District Collector while issuing Ext.P17 in WP(C)No.41944/2022.

13. I have examined Ext.P17 in WP(C)No.41944/2022, which is an order purportedly issued pursuant to the directions of this Court in the judgment in WP(C)Nos.30677/2021 and 16088/2022. Even though this Court had directed the District Collector to consider the validity of assignment of the land in favour of the petitioner, as also the forensic worth of the subsequent proceedings of the Tahsildar dated 10.03.2016, the said Authority has proceeded to settle his opinion to the effect that since the property in question belongs to a 'road purambokku' or is a 'tharissu bhoomi', such an assignment could not have been made, except by the Government under Rule 24 of the Land Assignment Rules. He has, however, affirmed that the sale consideration for the property had been paid by the petitioner, amounting to Rs.12,375/-, much earlier; but still concludes that since the property is vitally necessary for the purpose of a road or such other public purposes, the petitioner

11

must be allotted another convenient land; for which purpose, he has now referred the entire matter to the Government. He has, in the meanwhile, also ordered that all action pursuant to the Order of Assignment and the order of the Tahsildar dated 10.03.2016 be 'frozen'.

14. I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore order of the District Collector because, he was directed by this Court to consider the validity of the assignment, as also the merit of the order of the Tahsildar dated 10.03.2016. It was incumbent upon him to do so because, this exercise came to be warranted on account of the Statutory Revision filed by the Grama Panchayat. However, as I have already said above, the District Collector did not act as he was expected to, but indited an opinion that the petitioner must be given an alternative land and then referred the matter to the Government under Rule 24 of the Land Assignment Rules.

15. It is rather disturbing that, this stand of the District Collector has lead to the other two Writ Petitions before this Court because, in the meanwhile, on account of the persisting

12

disputes between the parties, there are allegations and contra allegations as to harassment and requirement for Police protection. This would have been unnecessary, had the District Collector taken a proper decision in terms of the directions of this Court and in the manner he was expected to act, as per the extant laws and rules.

16. That said, I notice that Ext.P17 order of the District Collector in WP(C)No.41944/2022 remains stayed and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo with respect to the property in question. In fact, it is affirmed by the learned counsel for the parties that, against the interim orders of the learned Judge of this Court, a learned Division Bench entertained WA No.555/2023, further directing that the parties should not make any construction without the permission of the Panchayat and that Police must maintain law and order.

17. Therefore, as matters now stand, the proceedings before the District Collector is still pending, though he has issued Ext.P17 in WP(C)No.41944/2022, referring the matter to Government. As I have already said above, this was impermissible

13

because it is for the said Authority to take a final decision on the Revision filed by the Panchayat and he could not have relegated the matter to any other Authority, including the Government. In the afore circumstances, these Writ Petitions are ordered in the following manner:

a) WP(C)Nos.36566/2022 and 41944/2022 are ordered, setting aside Ext.P17 in the latter; consequently directing the District Collector to act strictly in terms of the directions of this Court in the earlier judgment in WP(C)Nos.30677/2021 and 16088/2022, after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the parties; thus culminating in a final order on the Statutory Revision of the Panchayat, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

b) WP(C)Nos.42848/2022 and 3641/2023 are ordered directing the parties to maintain status quo on the property in question and await the order of the District Collector in terms of the directions in (a) above; with a further direction that its attributes or nature shall not be altered or modified.

14

c) The District Collector, on completion of the exercise as ordered in (a) above, shall ensure that resultant proceedings are communicated to the parties appropriately and they are left with full liberty to live with the same, as they may be advised, thereafter; for which, all contentions are left open.

Sd/-

ACR/RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGE

16

Exhibit P13 TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE THATCHED SHED

BEING ERECTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE

PROPERTY MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT.P1

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT W.P.(C)NO. 17281/2016 DATED 21.02.2017

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED

24.05.2018 FILED BY THE IN SHO,

MEENAKSHIPURAM POLICE STATION IN W.P.

(C).NO.15920/2018.

Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2018

ISSUED BY THE RDO, PALAKKAD REJECTING

THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED

01.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE

DATED 30.09.2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD

RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

Exhibit R1 (a) True copy of the Order dated 19/02/2021 in RP 475/2020

Exhibit R1(b) True copy of the extract of the Basic Tax Register certified by the Village

Officer, Moolathara dated 12/06/2014

Exhibit R1(c) True copy of the order dated 9/12/2022 issued by the 4th respondent

Exhibit R1(d) True copy of the judgment dated 21/02/2017 in WPC.17281/2016

Exhibit R1(e) True copy of the inspection report submitted by the Deputy Collector (L R) to the District Collector, Palakkad

dated 07/02/2018

Exhibit R1(f) True copy of the judgment dated 19/08/2022 in WPC.30677/2021 and

WPC.16088/2022

18

Exhibit P13 TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE THATCHED SHED

BEING ERECTED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE

PROPERTY MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT.P1

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT W.P.(C)NO. 17281/2016 DATED 21.02.2017

Exhibit P15 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED

24.05.2018 FILED BY THE SHO,

MEENAKSHIPURAM POLICE STATION IN W.P.

(C).NO.15920/2018.

Exhibit P16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.10.2018

ISSUED BY THE RDO, PALAKKAD REJECTING

THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P17 True copy of the order dated 09.12.2022 issued by the 4th respondent

Exhibit P18 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 3/4/2003 ISSUED BY THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR,

CHITTUR.

Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED

13.12.2001 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

Exhibit P20 TRUE PHOTOGRAPH COPY OF THE POLICE

STATION AT MEENAKSHIPURAM JUST BEHIND

LAND MENTIONED IN EXHIBIT.P1

Exhibit P21 TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PANCHAYATH

BUILDING LOCKED AND KEPT IDLE IN FRONT

OF THE PROPERTY MENTIONED IN EXBHIBIT P1

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MAIN ROAD.

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

Annexure R1(a) True copy of the judgment dated 19/02/2021 in RP 475/2020

Annexure R1(b) True copy of the extract of the Basic Tax Register certified by the Village Officer, Moolathara dated 12/06/2014 Annexure R1(c) True copy of the judgment dated 21/02/2017 in WPC.17281/2016

Annexure R1(d) True copy of the inspection report submitted by the Deputy Collector (L R) to the District Collector, Palakkad

dated 07/02/2018

Annexure R1(e) True copy of the judgment dated 19/08/2022 in WPC.30677/2021 and

WPC.16088/2022

20

31.12.2022 PALAKKAD EDITION

Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT

PUBLISHED IN DEEPIKA DAILY DATED

31.12.2022 PALAKKAD EDITION

Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE PAPER REPORT

PUBLISHED IN VEEKSHANAM DAILY DATED

31.12.2022 PALAKKAD EDITION

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit R1 (a) True copy of the judgment dated 19/02/2021 in RP 475/2020 in

WPC.10068/2020

Exhibit R1(b) True copy of the extract of the Basic Tax Register certified by the Village Officer, Moolathara dated 12/06/2014 Exhibit R1(c) True copy of the judgment dated 21/02/2017 in WPC.17281/2016

Exhibit R1(d) True copy of the inspection report submitted by the Deputy Collector (L R) to the District Collector, Palakkad

dated 07/02/2018

Exhibit R1(e) True copy of the order in File No. DCPKD/2952/2019-LRA 5 dated 9/12/2022 Exhibit R1(f) True copy of the common judgment dated 19/08/2022 in WPC.30677/2021 and

WPC.16088/2022

Exhibit R1(g) True copy of the statement filed by the Station House Officer in WPC 30677/2021