P V Xavier vs State Of Kerala & Ors.

The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P7 Order issued by the 1^st respondent/State, which dismissed Ext.P5 revision preferred as per Rule 20(iii) of the Transfer of Registry Rules.

The essential point raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the course adopted in Ext.P7, directing the petitioner to file an appeal against Ext.P4 Thandaper Account (which was sought to be revised in Ext.P5 revision) is untenable. According to the learned Counsel, the remedy under Rule 20(iii), of the Transfer of Registry Rules is an original proceeding, which is liable to be kindled, either suo motu or on an application by an affected person. That apart, to invoke Rule 20(iii), there is no time limit prescribed, wherefore frowning upon Ext.P5 revision for the reason that Ext.P4 Thandaper Account is of the year 2012, also cannot be sustained in law. The fact that the petitioner did not choose to file an appeal against Ext.P4 as envisaged in Rule 18, cannot preclude or foreclose his right in terms of Rule 20(iii) to seek revision. On such premise, the petitioner seeks Ext.P7 to be set aside.

Learned Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner has no interest, whatsoever, in the subject property. He would allege that certain documents are created fraudulently by the 6^th respondent, so as to encapsulate puramboke land into their property. Learned Government Pleader would submit that invocation of Rule 20(iii) is subject to the satisfaction of the Government, as regards the existence of sufficient grounds. Ext.P7 Order is self speaking as to the absence of such sufficient grounds to invoke Rule 20(iii). Learned Government Pleader would also submit that, without availing the remedy of an appeal, recourse to revision under Rule 20(iii) cannot be made, as a matter of right. On the merits of the matter, learned Government Pleader would submit that Ext.P7 elaborately considered the petitioner’s allegation and rejected the same, which warrants no interference from this Court under Article 226 of Constitution.

Learned Counsel for the 6^th respondent would submit that the petitioner is repeatedly harassing the 6^th respondent by filing Writ Petitions, one after another. The oblique motive of the petitioner is to have access to the public road through the 6^th respondent’s property, the petitioner’s property being admittedly situated behind the 6^th respondent’s property. On merits, learned Counsel would invite the attention of this Court to Ext.P7 at running page no.53 of the Writ Petition (this Court is constrained to refer to the running page number, since Ext.P7 Order neither has any page number, nor has any paragraph number) to drive home that there is no merit, whatsoever, in petitioner‘s allegation that fraudulent document has been created by the 6^th respondent. The relevant portion of Ext.P7 Order is extracted herebelow:

Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, this Court finds absolutely no merit, whatsoever, in this Writ Petition. Ext.P7 Order specifically finds that Ext.P5 revision preferred by the petitioner is not in order, and that the petitioner’s objection over the transfer of registry effected regarding 66 square meters of land in favour of the 6^th respondent, is a matter which should have been taken up in appeal by the petitioner, if he was aggrieved about the same. To invoke the revisional remedy under Rule 20(iii), the affected party should exhaust the other statutory remedies, including appeal in terms of Rules 18, 19 etc, is the finding in Ext.P7. Ext.P7 also specifically finds that the transfer of registry effected in favour of the 6^th respondent has no impact, whatsoever on the property of the petitioner and that his lawyer has submitted, during the course of hearing, that the petitioner’s case is more or less in the nature of public interest.

This Court finds no telling illegality or irregularity on Ext.P7, so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of Constitution.

Rule 20 is extracted herebelow:-

The common thread which runs through Rule 20(i),(ii) and (iii) is the satisfaction of the authority concerned, of the existence of sufficient grounds. When it comes to Rule 20(i), it is the satisfaction of the Board of Revenue, which enables a suo motu revision. Under Rule 20(ii), satisfaction mandated is again that of the Board of Revenue. The jurisdiction can be exercised either suo motu or otherwise, the latter contemplating an application by the affected party. Sub Rule 2 of Rule 20 is for cancellation or alteration of any decision passed by an authority subordinate to the Board of Revenue, wherein there is a limitation of ten years from the date of decision. Coming to the relevant Rule, that is Rule 20(iii), the power is bestowed on the Government, only if it is satisfied of the existence of sufficient grounds to cancel or alter any decision, which has been passed by an authority subordinate to it, at any time. Here again, the power can be exercised either suo motu or otherwise. While it is one thing to point out that the Government is at liberty to suo motu revise any Order passed by an authority subordinate to it at any time, it is different altogether, when it comes to the invocation of that power at the instance of an affected person. When a revision is sought for at the instance of an affected person, the inordinate delay is a matter which can influence the satisfaction of the Government, as regards the sufficiency of the grounds to cancel or alter the decision impugned. In the instant facts, Ext.P4 is sought to be revised by virtue of Ext.P5 revision. Ext.P4 Thandaper Account is of the year 2012, whereas the Ext.P5 revision is of the year 2024. Again, the petitioner was not trying to espouse any cause affecting him, but was canvassing a case alleging encapsulation of puramboke land by the 6^th respondent. As found in Ext.P7 Order, the competent revenue authority has no case that the land, which is the subject matter of this Writ Petition, is a puramboke land.

It is in these circumstances that the challenge to Ext.P7 has to be appreciated. As already indicated, no ground exists warranting interference under Article 226. This, coupled with the allegation that the petitioner is trying to espouse his oblique motive as against the 6^th respondent by filing Writ Petitions one after another, would leave no room for any doubt, except a course dismissing the Writ Petition. It is so ordered. It is clarified that the findings in this judgment cannot prejudice the State’s contention regarding puramboke land and the proceedings initiated against the 6^th respondent on that basis, which is the subject matter of Writ Petition(C) No.19234/2024. The consideration of that Writ Petition will not be influenced in any manner by the findings in this judgment.

This Writ Petition will stand dismissed as above.

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPTS IN THANDAPER NO. 30422 DATED 24/01/2025

Exhibit P1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPTS IN THANDAPER NO. 5993 DATED 24/01/2025

Exhibit P1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPTS IN THANDAPER NO. 27339 DATED 25/01/2025

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF A SALE DEED NO. 2257/2012 DATED 04/04/2012 OF KOTHAMANGALAM SRO

Exhibit P3 TRUE TYPED COPY OF PARTITION DEED NO. 1200/1124 (ME) DATED 05/01/1949 (22ND DHANU 1124(ME)) OF KOTHAMANGALAM SRO

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER ACCOUNT NO. 25427 OF KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION DATED 24/02/2025 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08/04/2025 IN WP© NO 12603/2025 OF THIS HON’BLE COURT

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO 1665/2025/RD DATED 10/07/2025 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT