IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 27575 of 2007(G)
1. M.K.SUGUNA, AGED 50 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION,
... Respondent
2. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,
3. THE PALAKKAD LAND TRIBUNAL.
4. (KALADHARAN), TAHSILDAR,
5. GIRIJA MARY, THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
6. RAMACHANDRAN, DISTRICT REGISTRAR,
7. P.BALACHANDRAN, SUB REGISTRAR, CHITTUR,
8. VICTOR, SUB REGISTRAR, KOZHINJAMPARA,
9. R.I P.S.JOHNES, THE CHITTUR MUNICIPALITY
10. MOHAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
11. ASHOK KUMAR, DEPUTY COLLECTOR,
12. SELVARAJ, SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
13. RAMAKRISHNAN (ABKARI) AT PANNIPERUNTHALA
14. SELVARAJ (SALES TAX OFFICER) TELUGU
15. COUNCILLOR KRISHNASWAMY FOR III RD
For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.SUGUNA (PARTY-IN-PERSON)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :30/10/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 27575 OF 2007 G
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 30th October, 2007
J U D G M E N T
The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the
1st and 2nd respondents to issue copy of Patta No.
1367/75, copy of O.A.No. 50/79, 1665/76 and Non-
Encumbrance Certificate. Petitioner claims ownership
of certain properties and asserting her rights over the
said properties and also a building, she had made
complaints to various authorities including the
President of India and the Chief Minister of the State,
which were forwarded to the District Collector,
Palakkad who issued Ext. P23. By this letter
petitioner was informed that as she did not produce any
document in support of her claims in the enquiry held
by the Collector, she could take recourse to
proceedings before a civil court for establishing her
right. It is on receipt of this communication that
this writ petition was filed with the prayers mentioned
above.
2. When the petitioner appeared in this Court as
party in person, this Court directed the 1st respondent
WPC No.27575/07 -2-
District Collector to file a statement and accordingly
a statement on his behalf was filed by the learned
Govt. Pleader and a copy thereof was served on the
petitioner on 5-10-2007.
3. In so far as patta No. 1367/75 claimed by the
petitioner is concerned, it is averred in the statement
filed on behalf of the 1st respondent that though she
had applied for the patta, on verification of the
records in connection with SM No. 1367/75, it was found
that this pertains to one Kadukunny Nair Manjalloor
P.O. and also Kolothu Parambil Kunjayamma, Amayoor
P.O., Pattambi. The 1st respondent would state that the
properties in these cases did not belong to the
petitioner or her predecessors and the petitioner was
totally unconnected with these cases. Petitioner has
not produced any document in this proceedings to prove
that she has any connection with the cases referred to
above or that she is entitled to the properties which
are the subject matter of these proceedings. If that
be so, on the material available, it is not possible
for this Court to find the statement to be incorrect
for any reason.
4. In so far as copy of O.A. 50/79 and 1665/76,
WPC No.27575/07 -3-
are concerned, going by the writ petition these pertain
to the properties claimed by the petitioner in various
survey numbers in Oahalapally Village, Velanthavalam
P.O., Palakkad District. It is stated by the 1st
respondent that the Tahsildar, Chittur after an enquiry
had reported that the lands involved have already been
disposed to various persons by Shri. Rengaswamy
Chettiar and Smt. Krishnammal, the parents of the
petitioner, as per document Nos. 1084/85, 1085/85,
1086/85 and 1087/85 of the office of the Sub Registrar,
Chittur. It is also stated that another extent of 12
cents of land in survey No. 1029/3 was also disposed of
by her parents and that as the mutation has not been
carried out, the names of the previous owners continue
to be denoted in the revenue records and it is on that
basis the claim has been raised.
5. In so far as this prayer of the petitioner is
concerned also, with the available materials, this
Court will not be justified in granting the relief.
While the petitioner claims ownership over the
properties in question the respondents would state that
the properties have already been disposed of, that it
is only on the basis that revenue records denoted the
WPC No.27575/07 -4-
name of her parents that she is staking a claim in
respect of the properties. Thus, according to the
respondents, the land does not belong to the
petitioner. Petitioner has not produced any document to
accept her claim to the contrary. In any case, what
arises is essentially a dispute of title in respect of
an immovable property. For establishing the right,
parties are required to produce title deeds, adduce
evidence and prove their case. This cannot be done in
proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. It was irrespective of all these that following
receipt of the representations made by the petitioner
to various authorities that the 1st respondent had
conducted an enquiry into the complaints of the
petitioner. On that occasion also petitioner could not
produce documents to sustain her claim. Though she has
made several allegations I have no reason to think that
the District Collector has any reason to not impartial
or, to be prejudicial to the case of the petitioner, if
she has a genuine grievance. On the materials
available I cannot say that the District Collector has
exercised his powers in an arbitrary manner. In my
view, in view of the failure of the petitioner to
WPC No.27575/07 -5-
sustain her claim by producing documents the District
Collector could only do what he has done in Ext.P23.
7. Be that as it may, even now if the petitioner
has documents to sustain her claim, the 1st respondent
shall examine the same and pass orders to redress her
grievances. However, the burden of establishing here
case will be entirely on the petitioner and it is not
for the authorities to search for her title and prove
her case.
8. I do not find any justification for granting
the relief sought for by the petitioner. But, however,
I clarify that if the petitioner is able to sustain her
claim by producing documentary evidence, she may still
approach the 1st respondent in which event the 1st
respondent will consider her case and pass orders to
remedy her grievances.
9. Writ petition is disposed of as above.
Since the petitioner appeared in person, the
Registry will forward a copy of this judgment in her
address in the writ petition.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-