VINEESHKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioner, his father had obtained Ext.P-1 purchase certificate dated 16.8.1977 in S.M.No.1147/70 on the file of the Land Tribunal, Chittur. The subject matter of the property in Ext.P-1 purchase certificate dated 16.8.1977 granted in favour of the petitioner's deceased father is an extent of 59 cents of wet land in Sy.No.1406/2 and 20 cents of dry land in Sy.No.1422/5 of Thathamangalam Village, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad Revenue District. That, after the death of the petitioner's father, the said property covered by Ext.P-1 devolved on his legal representatives, viz., petitioner's mother, his two brothers and the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the said property has not been mutated in the name of the above said legal representatives, it is still under the possession of the petitioner and other legal representatives of the petitioner's deceased father.

(2.) That petitioner's family has been regularly paying land tax before the Village officer concerned as evident from Ext.P-2 land tax receipt dated 11.4.2016. According to the petitioner, the old Sy.No.1422/5, referred to in Ext.P-1 purchase certificate dated 16.8.1977, has been assigned resurvey number, Re.Sy.No.186/7, as can be seen from Ext.P-3 certificate. Ext.P-3 is stated to be the possession certificate dated 24.6.2015 issued in respect of the above said properties including the above said 20 cents of land in old Sy.No.1422/15 (Re.Sy.No.186/7). That later, land tax was not accepted by the Village Officer, Thathamangalam, in respect of the above said property on the ground that S.M proceedings are pending in respect of the above said property before the 2nd respondent-Land Tribunal, Palakkad at the instance of the proceedings initiated by the contesting 4th respondent. That when the petitioner had made enquiries about the said proceedings said to have initiated by the 4th respondent, it is learnt that the 4th respondent has submitted Ext.P-4 application dated 12015 for issuance of purchase certificate in respect of the very same property comprising of 20 cents of dry land in Re.Sy.No.186/7 of Thathamangalam Village, on which Ext.P-4(2) report was given by the Village Officer, Thathamangalam on 10.3.2016. It is the case of the petitioner that the Village Officer, Thathamangalam, has given wrong information in his report dated 10.3.2016 that the said property coming to 20 cents in Re.Sy.No.186/7 has not been assigned to anybody and none has applied for purchase certificate, etc. The petitioner, on behalf of all the legal representatives of his deceased father, has submitted Ext.P-5 objection before the Land Tribunal, Palakkad, which had registered S.M. Proceedings as S.M.No.441/2016 at the instance of the 4th respondent. It was contended in Ext.P-5 objection of the petitioner that the said S.M. Proceedings initiated at the instance of the 4 th respondent is not maintainable as the purchase certificate was earlier issued to the deceased father of the petitioner for the very same property as early as in the year 1977 and therefore the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the S.M. Proceedings initiated at the instance of the 4th respondent and no certificate could be issued in respect of the said property in favour of 4th respondent. It is in the light of these aspects, that the instant Writ Petition (Civil) has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) Notice before admission has been ordered in this case on 14.2018 to the 4th respondent by registered speed post. This Court had also issued interim direction to the Land Tribunal, Palakkad, directing that all further proceedings in S.M.No.441/16 on the file of the 2nd respondent-Land Tribunal, Palakkad, will remain stayed for a period of 3 months and the said interim order has been extended from time to time. It is now reported by the Registry that though notice send to R-4 by registered speed post on 19.2018 with hearing date 2.4.2018, neither the notice nor the acknowledgement card has been returned unserved, etc., and that the conditions for declaration of service of notice under Rule 51(2) of the High Court Rules has been satisfied in this case. Accordingly, it is declared that notice to R-4 is duly complete. Though service of notice on R-4 is duly completed, there is no appearance for that party.