Lakshmi & Ors. vs State Of Kerala & Ors.

An Order to shift a 'kudikidappu', passed as early as on 30.04.1973 vide Ext.P1, is successfully prevented from being implemented by the repetitive litigative exercise undertaken by the petitioners, thereby depriving an important right of respondent nos.4 and 5. The instant Writ Petition is the latest one in that series.

Heard Sri.Kodoth Sreedharan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Jaffer Khan Y, learned Senior Government Pleader and Sri.Mayankutty Mather, learned counsel on behalf of respondents 4 and 5.

To understand the gravity of the mischief perpetrated by the petitioners, a reference to the following facts is necessary:

that Writ Petition is the absence of jurisdiction of the R.D.O. to pass Ext.P1 Order, the contention being that the Government is the sole authority under Section 75(3) to pass the Order.

A perusal of the above narrated proceedings would indicate that the same contention - that Ext.P1 Order of the R.D.O. is one without jurisdiction for want of competence - has been canvassed by the petitioners and repelled by various Courts on various occasions, including this Court, as also, the Supreme Court. Undeterred, the petitioners have again approached this Court with the self-same contention, as if none of the judgments would bind the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would place heavy reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. N.G.Subbaraya Setty and Another [(2018) 16 SCC 228]. The attention of this Court has been drawn to the time-tested principles, as contained in paragraph no.33 of the judgment, that an Order/judgment, though inter-party, if wholly without jurisdiction, will not operate as res judicata. To the same effect is another judgment pressed into service by the learned counsel in Ramachandra Rao S. v. S.Nagabhushana Rao and others [AIR 2022 SC 5317].

There cannot be any quarrel with respect to the above proposition. A judgment or Order without jurisdiction is a nullity. Equally settled is the position that a judgment or Order, which lacks jurisdiction by defiance of a statutory mandate/direction, would also be a nullity. However, once absence of jurisdiction/competence is canvassed and rejected by courts of competent jurisdiction, can the petitioners keep on litigating the same question and challenge Ext.P1 Order, is the question involved in this Writ Petition. The self-same contention, of Ext.P1 being one without jurisdiction, has been canvassed on not less than three occasions and consistently rejected by various courts, including this Court and the Supreme Court. Ignoring such judgments, where the petitioners are privies, can there be an unabated power conferred on a litigant to keep on litigating the same issue, forever?

At the risk of repetition, this Court again refers to the instances where the petitioners have unsuccessfully challenged Ext.P1 on the very same contention of inherent lack of jurisdiction. The first, of course, is Ext.P5, where a learned Single Judge dismissed the challenge based on absence of jurisdiction, pointing out that the petitioner is guilty of inordinate delay and laches in approaching the High Court. Ext.P1 Order of the R.D.O. is dated 30.04.1973, whereas the petitioners chose to approach the High Court only in September, 1982. Suffice to note for the present purpose that the challenge to Ext.P1 Order of the R.D.O. on want of jurisdiction stands repelled vide Ext.P5. Thereafter, a suit was filed as O.S.No.317/1988 by Malayan Kannan - the petitioners' predecessor – which, again, was for a declaration that Ext.P1 Order of the R.D.O. is void for want of jurisdiction. That suit was allowed. An Appeal carried therefrom was dismissed. However, both the judgments were set at naught by Ext.P5(a) judgment of this Court in the Second Appeal preferred by Koragan, the predecessor of respondents 4 and 5. That judgment is produced at Ext.P5(a). A perusal of paragraph no.5 of the judgment would indicate that it was the self-same issue, which was agitated therein also. It is relevant to note that a Special Leave Petition carried from Ext.P5(a) judgment in S.L.P.(Civil) No.5825/2000 was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the 1^st petitioner filed another suit, O.S.No.193 of 2002, before the Munsiff's Court, Kasargod, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. The next adventure of the petitioners is by filing W.P.(C) No.9269/2012. Needless to say that, the ground urged was the same. The Writ Petition was allowed vide Ext.P5(b) judgment. However, the same was set aside in Writ Appeal vide Ext.P5(e) judgment. Once again, the S.L.P. carried by the petitioners was dismissed by the Supreme Court, evidenced by Ext.P5(f) judgment.

It could thus be seen that, the very same contention was canvassed on more than 4 or 5 occasions, before Civil Courts, before this Court, and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is after rejection of the successive litigations attempted by the petitioners that the petitioners have again chosen to approach this Court, in utter disregard of the binding inter-party judgments afore referred.

In this context, it is worthwhile to notice that lack of jurisdiction/competence can be sought to be assigned only to Ext.P1 Order of the R.D.O, and not to any subsequent judicial pronouncements referred above. Once a contention with respect to want of jurisdiction of an Order has been canvassed before competent courts of law, and the same having been dismissed, the legal position cannot be that the petitioners can ignore the binding judgments, and continue to treat Ext.P1 Order as a nullity. Upon rejection of the petitioners' contention that Ext.P1 Order is a nullity for want of jurisdiction by courts of competent jurisdiction, including the Apex Court of the Country, the petitioners will stand pinned down to the same.

This Court is of the opinion that the facts and circumstances are such that, a mere dismissal of the Writ Petition would not serve the interests of justice. What is being exhibited in the instant Writ Petition is nothing, but sheer abuse of the process of this Court, and that too, invoking the extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. On the one hand, this Court has to remain as the guardian of the fundamental rights of the parties, by appropriately invoking the writ jurisdiction, at instances where such foundational rights are infringed. However, it is equally important to see and ensure that the powers, extraordinary as it is, of the writ jurisdiction is not being misused or abused by anybody, so as to meet his private, vested, ulterior motive. The precious time of this Court has been wasted by the petitioners by canvassing the very same contention, despite that being repelled by this Court and the same attaining finality even by the Apex Court of the country. An indefeasible right to keep on agitating over concluded issues cannot be recognized. This aspect has already been pointed out by the Division Bench in Ext.P5(e) judgment of this Court, vide the observations in paragraph nos.8 and 9. The audacity and the litigational adventurism being reflected by this Writ Petition can only be curbed by imposing appropriate costs to prevent abuse, as also, wastage of time of this Court.

In the circumstances, the Writ Petition will stand dismissed with a cost of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to be paid by the petitioners to respondent nos.4 and

This Court is not unmindful of the fact that a cost of Rs.50,000/-, ordered by this Court earlier, has been lifted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, showing indulgence to the petitioners. However, the same has to be understood by the petitioners as an indulgence shown by the Apex Court of the country, inter-alia taking into account their status as members of the Scheduled Caste community. That cannot, however, clothe the petitioners with an indefeasible right to keep on abusing and misusing the provisions of law and especially, the powers of this Court under Article 226. The repetitive litigations and the recalcitrant attitude not to abide by any of the afore-referred judgments deserve no sympathy. This Court is therefore persuaded to dismiss this Writ Petition with an exemplary cost of rupees three lakhs. It is so done.

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/4/1973 ISSUED BY THE RDO NO.D DIS. 10491/71

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 22/9/2008 OF THE RDO NO.REF:A.3350/01(1)

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING ASSIGNMENT OF KUDIKIDAPPU RIGHTS IN RS NO.122/1 DATED 08/09/1972

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ALONG WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OF THE LANDLORD

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP NO.7073/1982 DATED 1/6/1987 CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF SHIFTING

Exhibit P5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN SA NO.360/1996 DATED 22/10/1999 BY THIS HON’BLE COURT

Exhibit P5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP NO.9269/2012 DATED 25/05/2023 BY THIS HON’BLE COURT

Exhibit P5(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WA NO.1240/2023 DATED 18/06/2025 BY THIS HON’BLE COURT

Exhibit P5(d) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SLP NO.18740/2025 DATED 25/07/2025)

Exhibit P5(e) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA NO.1240/2023 DATED 14/08/2025 BY THIS HON’BLE COURT

Exhibit P5(f) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SLP NO.31841/2025 DATED 6/11/2025

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN OA 645/1970 DATED 14/5/1971 BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD

Exhibit P6(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31/1/1990 BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD

Exhibit P6(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 122/92 IN OA 27/1980 DATED 22/7/1992 BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD

Exhibit P6(c) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/8/2020 BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 22/6/2020

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS RDOKSD/1101/2025-82 DATED 28/6/2025 ISSUED BY THE RDO

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 24/7/2025 ISSUED BY THE RDO RDOKSD/664/2025-B2(2)

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03/10/2025 ISSUED BY THE RDO RDOKSD/664/2025-B2

Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RDO NO. RDOKSD/664/2025/B2 DATED 21/11/2025 ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A BULLDOZER EVICTION

Exhibit P12 TRUE COPY OF THE CASTE CERTIFICATE OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 19-1-2019

Exhibit P13 True copy of the application dated 22/12/2025 submitted by the petitioners

EXHIBIT R4(a) True copy of the proceedings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kasargode dated 28.05.2002.

EXHIBIT R4(b) True copy of the judgment of the Munsiff Court, Kasargode dated 12.06.2003 in O.S. No. 193/2002

EXHIBIT R4(c) True copy of the judgment in O.P. No. 13070/2003 dated 02.12.2019

EXHIBIT R4(d) True copy of the counter affidavit filed before this Honourable Court dated 25.11.2013

EXHIBIT R4(e) True copy of the plaint in OS No. 426/2025 dated 18.11.2025 before the Munsiff Court, Kasargode

EXHIBIT R4(f) True copy of the table demonstrating the entire sequence of events

EXHIBIT R3(a) The copy of the Thandaper No.9371 allotted to Sri. Malayan Kannan

EXHIBIT R3(b) Copy of the Sketch prepared by the Surveyor pertaining to Survey No.122/6