Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Once a Court Declares a Department an Industry Under Section 2(j), State Cannot Raise the Same Objection Again: Gujarat High Court Slams Repetitive Litigation by Irrigation Department “How Could Cheques Issued in 2020 Be Mentioned in a 2019 Contract?”: Delhi High Court Grants Injunction in Forged MOA Case, Slams Prima Facie Fabrication Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Sole Testimony of Prosecutrix, If Credible, Is Enough to Convict: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Cheque Issued as Security Still Attracts Section 138 NI Act If Liability Exists on Date of Presentation: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Original Patta Was Never Received: Kerala High Court Dismisses Land Dispute, Orders Investigation

13 January 2025 6:57 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Subheadline: “Document Manipulations and Misuse of Patta Files Cited in Landmark Judgment on Land Assignment Fraud

In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court dismissed petitions challenging the cancellation of thandaper accounts by the Tahsildar of Udumbanchola. The court found no merit in the petitioners’ claims and highlighted substantial document manipulations in the issuance and transfer of patta. The judgment, delivered by Acting Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S. Manu, underscores the need for vigilance in land transactions and the importance of thorough investigations by revenue authorities.

The cases revolved around the cancellation of thandaper accounts of Nicholas Varghese and Basheer P.A. by the Tahsildar of Udumbanchola. Both petitioners had purchased land in Chinnakkanal Village, Idukki District, which was initially assigned to K.K. Ramakrishna Pillai in 1968. The thandaper accounts were later canceled on grounds of irregularities and manipulations in the issuance of patta. The petitioners contended that they had exercised due diligence before purchasing the land, obtaining necessary certificates and documents.

The court emphasized the Tahsildar’s findings of significant document manipulations. “The impugned order reveals crucial facts indicating that the original patta was not properly issued and that there were multiple irregularities in the land assignment records,” the bench noted. The discrepancies included the absence of records in assignment registers, inconsistent signatures, and the unexplained delay in thandaper account creation.

Addressing the petitioners’ claims, the court observed that the Tahsildar had provided ample opportunities for them to present their case. The court found no evidence of bias or extraneous influence in the Tahsildar’s proceedings. “The Tahsildar acted independently, examining all relevant records and issuing a detailed and reasoned order,” the judgment stated.

The court reiterated the principle that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution primarily concerns the decision-making process. In this case, the court found that the Tahsildar had followed due process, considering all relevant aspects and providing the petitioners with adequate opportunities to present their case. “There is no violation of the principles of natural justice, and the conclusions arrived at by the Tahsildar cannot be depicted as baseless or unreasonable,” the court declared.

Justice S. Manu remarked, “The detailed account of manipulations narrated by the Tahsildar in the impugned proceedings clearly shows proper application of mind and thorough examination of all relevant records.”

The Kerala High Court’s judgment underscores the importance of meticulous documentation and scrutiny in land transactions. By dismissing the writ petitions, the court has validated the thorough investigative process undertaken by the Tahsildar. Additionally, the court directed the Special Investigation Team to conduct a further probe into the involvement of officials in the fraudulent transactions, ensuring that all those involved are held accountable. This judgment serves as a significant precedent, reinforcing the integrity of land records and the due diligence required in property transactions.

Date of Decision: 25th July 2024
 

Latest Legal News