IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1310 of 2008()
1. SMT.NESAN MANGALODAYAM
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :26/06/2008
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & A.K.BASHEER, J.
-------------------------------------------------------
W.A.No.1310 of 2008
-------------------------------------------------------
Dated, this the 26th day of June, 2008
JUDGMENT
H.L.Dattu, C.J.
This writ appeal is directed against the orders passed by
the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2134 of 2008 dated 31st March,
2008.
2. The first prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to
respondents 1 to 3 to take necessary actions to re-construct the pattayam
issued to the petitioner in LA.No.II/26/75. The second prayer is to
declare that the original pattayam mentioned in Ext.P1 is irrecoverably
lost.
3. The learned Single Judge before disposing of the writ
petition had issued notice to the respondents. On instruction, the learned
Government Advocate had submitted before the learned Single Judge
that the records relating to the petitioner’s pattayam has been lost, and
therefore it is highly impossible to re-construct the records and then issue
a copy of the pattayam to the petitioner.
4. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ
petition has observed that the Writ Court cannot direct the authorities
W.A.No.1310/2008 -2-
under the Act to perform an impossible thing and therefore the reliefs
sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
5. Aggrieved by the said observations made by the learned
Single Judge, the petitioner is before us in this writ appeal.
6. Sri.G.S.Reghunath, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant placing fingers on Rule 22 of the Kerala Land Assignment
Rules, 1964 would submit that it is expected of the respondents to keep
the records in tact and since they they have lost, the respondents cannot
plead that they have lost the records and therefore they are not in a
position to give the copy of the pattayam, the original of which was
given to the petitioner in the year 1976.
7. We have carefully perused Rule 22 of the Kerala Land
Assignment Rules, 1964. It only says that the Registers and accounts
necessary for purposes of these rules shall be duly maintained by the
authorities concerned. It further states that the Tahasildar concerned
shall maintain a register showing the lands assigned in each Taluk with
particulars of the assignee and conduct periodical check to ensure that
the conditions of the assignment are not violated.
8. Nowhere in the Rule it is stated for how many years the
records has to be kept by the authorities under the Act. Even otherwise
W.A.No.1310/2008 -3-
also if the original records have been lost, it is impossible for the
respondents to re-construct and then give a copy of the same to the
petitioner.
9. Sri.G.S.Reghunath, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant would submit that, based on Ext.P1 the records should be
re-constructed and a copy of the pattayam should be given to the
petitioner. The Land Assignment Act or the Land Assignment Rules
does not provide for re-construction of any documents in the absence of
the original registers. Keeping all these aspects in view, the learned
Single Judge has rightly rejected the writ petition and thereby declined to
grant the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. We do not see any error
committed by the learned Single Judge which calls for our interference.
Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(A.K.BASHEER)
JUDGE
MS