ALUKKAS GOLD RETAIL INDIA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P15 order passed by the 2nd respondent, cancelling the mutation in respect of property comprising of 35 cents in Sy.No.132/2A of Thrissur Village. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It had purchased the aforesaid extent of 35 cents of land in Sy.No.132/2A of Thrissur Village on 21.8.2010 through a sale deed No.3155/2010 of Thrissur Sub Registrar Office [Ext.P1]. The property was purchased from one Andezhath Vijayan. It would appear that when Sri.Vijayan was in ownership of the property, there was an attempt made, at the instance of the 5 th respondent, to trespass into the property of the said Vijayan, and he therefore approached the Munsiff's Court, Thrissur through O.S.No.885/2002 and obtained Ext.P7 judgment and decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the 5th respondent from trespassing into his property and annexing any portion of the same to the nearby road. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree obtained by the said Vijayan, the 5 th respondent preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court. The said appeal, however, came to be dismissed by Ext.P10 judgment dated 20.3.2010. It was immediately thereafter that the petitioner had purchased the property on 21.8.2010, as already noted above. The proceedings pursuant to Ext.P10 judgment, that was pursued by the 5 th respondent, culminated in Ext.P11 judgment dated 15.11.2012 of this Court in R.S.A.No.336/2011. In the said judgment, while dismissing the second appeal preferred by the 5th respondent, taking note of the submission made on behalf of the 5th respondent that there was a forgery committed by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner herein [Vijayan] while producing the original pattas issued in respect of the land before the trial court in the suit, this Court left it open to the 4 th respondent to move an appropriate application before the trial court for recall of the judgment and decree, if the allegation of forgery was found to be substantiated. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the 5th respondent that an application has since been preferred by the 5 th respondent before the trial court but no orders have been passed in those proceedings. It is pointed out that the said proceedings have not progressed in view of the S.L.P.No.28832/2013 that was carried by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner before the Supreme Court against the directions in Ext.P11 judgment of this Court.

(2.) While matters stood so, the petitioner, immediately after the purchase of the property on 21.8.2010, applied for a mutation of the property in his name, and the said mutation was carried out on 25.9.2010. Immediately thereafter, by Ext.P13 notice dated 4.1.2011, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the mutation carried out in his name should not be cancelled on account of the alleged forgery in the original pattayams issued in respect of the land. The proceedings initiated by Ext.P13 notice culminated in Ext.P15 order of the District Collector, whereby, the District Collector confirmed the proposals in Ext.P13 notice and directed a cancellation of the mutation carried out in favour of the petitioner. As already noticed, Ext.P15 is impugned in the writ petition by the petitioner inter alia on the contention that the allegation of forgery with regard to the pattayams pertaining to the land in question have not been established before any court of law, and without such forgery being established before a legal forum, the respondents could not unilaterally move against the petitioner for cancellation of the mutation effected in its name.

(3.) Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the 2 nd respondent as also the 5th respondent. While the counter affidavit of the 5th respondent gives details of the proceedings between the 5th respondent and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner in the subordinate courts as also this Court, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent deals with the proceedings that were initiated within the Revenue Department in connection with an enquiry against the four pattas bearing Nos.1/26/83, 1/27/83, 1/28/83 and 1/29/83 covering the 35 cents of land purchased by the petitioner. In this connection, it is stated that pursuant to a report of the Additional Tahasildar, Thrissur, on 6.12.2004, and later on 5.1.2005, a Vigilance enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Thrissur, and the report of the said authority revealed that the pattas in question were not issued from the Taluk Office, Thrissur. The report also suggested that the power of attorney of Smt.Leelamani, the wife of Vijayan, was a forged one. There is a further reference in the counter affidavit of the 2 nd respondent, to the reliance placed by the respondents, on the reports of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance as also the Additional Tahsildar, Thrissur, for the purposes of holding the view that the pattas covering the lands in question were forged. Significantly, the counter affidavit does not refer to any legal proceedings wherein, the said findings relating to forgery, in relation to the pattas, was established.