N.a. Shareefa vs State of Kerala

4/3/2014 Kerala Law: N.A. Shareefa Vs. State of Kerala

http://kerala.supremelaw.in/2014/03/na-shareefa-vs-state-of-kerala.html#.Uz14y_ldU2Y 1/52

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID

FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/7TH CHAITHRA, 1936

WP(C).No. 19431 of 2013 (D)

----------------------------

PETITIONERS:

----------------------

1. N.A. SHAREEFA, 24/203, W/O. LATE KADER PILLA, ANJIKKATHU HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPPALAM, COCHIN-33.

2. A.K. NAZER, 24/201B, S/O.KADER PILLA, ANJIKKATHU HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPPALAM, COCHIN-33.

3. NOUSHAD. A.K., S/O.KADER PILLA, ANJIKKATHU HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPPALAM, COCHIN-33.

4. SHIMITHA, W/O. NOUSHAD, ANJIKKATHU HOUSE, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPPALAM, COCHIN-33.

BY ADVS.SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY, SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA), SRI.BEPIN PAUL.

RESPONDENTS:

-------------------------

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,

PIN:695 001.

2. THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, O/O. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, PIN:695 033.

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-682 030.

4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695

014.

5. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, (INTELLIGENCE) POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,

THYKKAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014. WP(C).No. 19431 of 2013 (D) 6. THE INSPECTOR

GENERAL OF POLICE, KOCHI RANGE, O/O. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SHANMUGHAM ROAD,

KOCHI-682 031.

7. THE DIRECTOR, VIGILANCE & ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., PIN:695 033.

8. SHRI K.H. ABDUL MAJEED, 24/147, ILLICKAL HOUSE, NEAR V.P.MARACKAR SMARAKA LIBRARY,

ILLICKAL MOIDEEN ROAD, PATHADIPPALAM-682 033.



9. NOORJAHAN, W/O. ABDUL MAJEED, 24/147, ILLICKAL HOUSE, NEAR V.P.MARACKAR SMARAKA

LIBRARY, ILLICKAL MOIDEEN ROAD, PATHADIPPALAM-682 033.

10. K.H. MUHAMMADALI, S/O. HASSAN, NOW RESIDING AT 24/143, ILLIKKAL HOUSE, NEAR

V.P.MARACKAR SMARAKA LIBRARY, ILLIKKAL MOIDEEN ROAD, PATHADIPPALAM P.O., CHANGAMPUZHA

NAGAR-682 033.

11. K.H. ABDUL SALAM, S/O. HASSAN, KAVUNGAPPADATH, VMB ROAD, PATHADIPPALAM,

CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR-682 033.

12. K.H. LAILA (ASYA), W/O. KUNJUMUHAMMED (KUNJAMI), KANDAYATH MADOM, OPPOSITE SALAFI

MASJID, ANIKKAD JUNCTION, NEAR SUPREME STEEL COMPANY, KUTTAMASSERY, THOTTUMUGHAM,

ALUVA-683 105.

13. K.H. SOUDA, W/O. HAMEED, CHENNAMPILLY HOUSE, P.K.B. NAGAR, COCHIN UNIVERSITY, PIN:682

033.

14. SABU, VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE, PIN:682 024.

15. MURAD, SPECIAL VILLAGE OFFICER, NOW IN KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, BUILDING TAX SESSION,

KOCHI-682 011.

16. SUNILLAL, NEW TAHSILDAR, FORT KOCHI TALUK OFFICE, FORT KOCHI-682 001.

17. KRISHNAKUMARI, ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOCHI-682 011. WP(C).No. 19431 of

2013 (D) 18. SALEEMRAJ. S., S/O. SAYEED, FLAT NO.16, PALAYAM POLICE QUARTERS, VIKAS BHAVAN

P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, (EX.GUN MAN, O/O. THE CHIEF MINISTER, STATE OF KERALA,

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM).

19. SHAMSHAD, W/O. SALEEMRAJ, FINANCE II, LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE

BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

20. DILEEP.K.K., S/O. KAMALADARAN, 35/3219D, KOOTHAPPILLIL HOUSE, RING COLONY,T.D. SANNIDI

ROAD, NEAR KARANAKUDAM TEMPLE, THAMMANAM, KOCHI-682 019.

21. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, CBI HEAD QUARTERS, NEW DELHI-110 001.

* ADDL. R22 TO R25 IMPLEADED

ADDL. R22. IDEA ZONAL OFFICE, CIRCLE OFFICE, MERCY ESTATE, 2ND FLOOR, RAVIPURAM, M.G.

ROAD, COCHIN-682 015.

ADDL. R23. P.T.MATHEW, GENERAL MANAGER, BSNL, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, COCHIN-682 016.

ADDL. R24. NODAL OFFICER, VODAPHONE CELLULAR LTD., ANGEL ARCADE, 4TH FLOOR, KUSAT

JUNCTION, COCHIN-682 022.

ADDL. R25. ZONAL MANAGER, BHARATHI AIRTEL LIMITED, SI AVENUE, NH BYEPASS, KUNDANNOOR

(JUNCTION), MARADU P.O., KOCHI-682 304.



* ARE IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R22 TO R25 AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO.11441/2013 DATED 23/10/2013.

** ADDL. R26 IMPLEADED ADDL. R26. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, (LEGAL ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY),

BSNL, TELEPHONE EXCHANGE BUILDING, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 036.

** IS IMPLEADED AS ADDL. R26 AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO.12139/2013 DATED 23/10/2013. WP(C).No.

19431 of 2013 (D)

***ADDL. R27 IMPLEADED ADDL. R27. EDAPPALLY ELANGALLOOR SWAROOPAM, REPRESENTED BY

SANKARARAJA, AGED 80, S/O.VASUDEVARAJA, 401, ELANGALLOOR SWAROOPAM, EDAPPALLY,

ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

*** ADDL. R27 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 06/01/2014 IN I.A. NO.259/2014.

R1 TO R7 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.P.A. MOHAMMED SHAH.

R8 TO R13 BY ADVS. SRI.M.P.RAMNATH, SRI.P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL).

R14 & R15 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR).

R16 BY ADVS. SRI.T.K. AJITHKUMAR, SRI.C.P.SAJI.

R17 BY SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE

R18 & R19 BY ADVS. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI, SRI.GEORGE PHILIP, SRI.R.ANIL, SRI.M.K.SUMODH,

SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B., SRI.MANU TOM, SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM (NILACKAPPILLIL), SRI.T.ANIL

KUMAR.

R20 BY ADVS. SRI.J.SHERRIFF, SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN, SRI.S.ANANTHAKRISHNAN.

R21 BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI, C.B.I.

ADDL. R22 & R25 BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SRI.SATHISH NINAN, SRI.ARUN THOMAS,

SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN.

ADDL. R23 & R26 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP,SC, BSNL.

ADDL. R24 BY ADV. SRI.P.SATHISAN.

ADDL. R27 BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SRI.SAIJO HASSAN, SRI.PRATHAP PILLAI, SRI.BENOJ C

AUGUSTIN, SRI.SEBIN THOMAS, SRI.VIVEK V. KANNANKERI, SMT.J.KASTHURI.

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-03-2014, ALONG WITH WP(C).NO.

19462 OF 2013, THE COURT ON 28-03-2014 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. WP(C).No. 19431 of 2013

(D)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-



P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO.1186/1957, EDAPPALLY S.R.O.

P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 18/09/2007 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION

OFFICER,THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE WITH ANNEXURES.

P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.2968354 DATED 17/01/2012 IN THE NAME

OF THE FIRST PETITIONER.


OF THE 3RD PETITIONER.


OF THE 4TH PETITIONER.


OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.

P7 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 22/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE

VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE.

P8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF FIR NO.1003/2007, KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION.

P9 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27/06/2013 IN CRL. R.P.NO.74/2011,

SESSIONS JUDGE, ERNAKULAM.

P10 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.S6-13205/2010 DATED 18/09/2010 ISSUED BY THE

ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR.

P11 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 09/07/2010 IN S.A.136/1994, HIGH COURT

OF KERALA.

P12 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPORT DATED 24/06/2011 NO.141/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE

14TH RESPONDENT.

P13 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 28/07/2011 ISSUED BY THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR,

KANAYANNUR.

P14 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER AND EXTRACT OF THANDAPER REGISTER PRODUCED

BY THE 11TH RESPONDENT, ISSUED BY THE 14TH RESPONDENT.

P15 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPORT NO.S6-9096/11 DATED 12/12/2011 ISSUED BY THE 16TH

RESPONDENT. ...........2- WP(C).No. 19431 of 2013 (D) P16 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF TAX

RECEIPTS NO.22 PRODUCED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 16TH RESPONDENT.

P17 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF TAX RECEIPTS NO.67 PRODUCED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER

BEFORE THE 16TH RESPONDENT P18 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO.LRB8-34440/11

DATED 04/01/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

P19 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 14/03/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 11TH

RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR REVENUE.

P20 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER NO-LRB8-34440/11 DATED 18/04/2012.

P21 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF REPORT NO.244/11 DATED 21/01/2012 PREPARED AND

SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 14 & 15 P22 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT

DATED 27/09/2012 FILED BY EDAPPALLY SWAROOPAM.

P23 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1064/1102ME.

P24 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPORT DATED 11/07/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 17TH

RESPONDENT.

P25 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16/07/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD

RESPONDENT.



P26 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER DATED 04/09/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

P27 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/06/2013 IN WP(C).NO. 23244/2012, HIGH

COURT OF KERALA.

P28 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF PETITION DATED 13/06/2013 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE HOME

MINISTER (WITHOUT ANNEXURES).

P29 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/06/2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE

HOME MINISTER (WITHOUT ANNEXURES).

P30 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.06.2013 BEFORE THE CHIEF

MINISTER.

P31 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 01.07.2013 SUBMITTED BY THE

PETITIONER BEFORE THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KOCHI RANGE.

P32 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.07.2013 RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF

THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION WITH ANNEXURE.

P33 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER S6-90961/10 DATED 19.06.2013. ..........3/- WP(C).No.

19431 of 2013 (D) P34 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED TO THE

PETITIONERS BEFORE THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, REVENUE DATED 20.07.2013 (WITHOUT

ANNEXURES).

P35 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COVERING LETTER AND CERTIFIED EXTRACT OF THE

SETTLEMENT REGISTER OF THRIKKAKARA PAKUTY ISSUED FROM THE CENTRAL ARCHIVES,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

P36 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN THEMADHYAMAM DAILY DATED

19.06.2013.

P37 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN THE CLEAR MADHYAMAM DAILY DATED

16.06.2013.

P38 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN THE HINDU DAILY DATED 30.06.2013.

P39 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN THE SUNDAY EXPRESS DAILY DATED

30.06.2013.

P40 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN THE CLEAR MATHRUBHUMI DAILYDATED

30.06.2013.

P41 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN THE DESABHIMANI DAILY DATED

30.06.2013.

P42 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED

19.06.2013.

P43 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN THE DESABHIMANI DAILY DATED

19.06.2013.

P44 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN THE JANMABHUMI DAILY DATED

19.06.2013.

P45. COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3080/1989, EDAPPALLY S.R.O.

P46. COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4910/1986, EDAPPALLY S.R.O.

P47. COPY OF THE THANDAPER NO.4174 OF THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE.







P52. COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 06/03/2013, TOGETHER WITH COPY OF THE

THANDAPER NO.7 RECEIVED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRIKKAKARA. ..........4/-

WP(C).No. 19431 of 2013 (D) P53. COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER OF THRIKKAKARA

VILLAGE ISSUED FROM THE CENTRAL SURVEY OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

P54. COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 15/11/2012 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

THRIKKAKARA NORTH VILLAGE.

P55. COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.2727/1114 ME.

P56. COPY OF THE PATTACHIT NO.2335/1116 ME.

P57. COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.871/1960.

P58. COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.872/1960.

P59. COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED NO.362/1982.

P60. COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 26/08/2013 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER UNDER THE

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT WITH REGARD TO THE TRANSFER OF THE 19TH RESPONDENT

TO THE OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER.

P61. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23/12/1986 IN O.S. NO.222/1981, IIND ADDITIONAL

MUNSIFF COURT, ERNAKULAM.

P62. COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 13/11/1962 IN O.S. NO.697/1959 MUNSIFF COURT,

ERNAKULAM.

P63. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 04/10/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, WITH ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

P64. COPY OF THE OFFICE NOTES IN FILE NO.LRB8 34440/11, LAND REVENUE

COMMISSIONER.

P65. COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19/07/2013 ADDRESSED BY THE LAND REVENUE

COMMISSIONER TO THE PRIVATE SECRETARY, REVENUE MINISTER AND THE SECRETARY

FOR REVENUE.

P66. COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 19/02/1966 IN O.S. NO.513/1964, MUNSIFF COURT,

ERNAKULAM.

P67. COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20/11/2013 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE

RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

P68. COPY OF THE F.I.R. NO.1928/2013, KALAMASSERY POLICE STATION.

P69. COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN TIMES OF INDIA DATED 06/10/2013.

P70. COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT IN METRO NEWS DATED 06/10/2013.

P71. COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28/11/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER.

.........5/- WP(C).No. 19431 of 2013 (D) P72. COPY OF THE INITIAL REPLYDATED

22/12/2012 REFUSING THE INFORMATION.

P73. COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 12/02/2013.

P74. COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER OF SY.NO.651/8A, B AND C.

P75. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY US BEFORE THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF

POLICE, THRIKKAKARA DATED 01/07/2013.

P76. COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION DATED 12/12/2013 ISSUED TO THE 17TH

RESPONDENT.

P77. COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION DATED 12/12/2013 ISSUED TO THE 14TH



RESPONDENT.

P78. COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 23/12/2013 ISSUED TO SRI.PRASANNA

KUMAR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, LAND REVENUE.

P79. COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 20/12/2013 ISSUED TO SMT.B. JAYASREE,

JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM.

P80. COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 20/12/2013 ISSUED TO SRI.V.M.MUHAMMED

BASHEER, DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR), COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM.

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

EXT.R4A COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER NO.345/LO/2013 RECEIVED ON 05/07/2013.

EXT.R4B COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05/07/2013 ADDRESSED TO THE PRINCIPAL

SECRETARYTO GOVERNMENT.

EXT.R4C COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE OPPOSITION LEADER BY

SMT.N.A. SHAREEFA.

EXT.R4D COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D2/93914/13 DATED 03/10/2013.

EXT.R(8)-1 COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1064/1102 ME (1927 AD)

SRO ALANGAD (NOW ALUVA) ALONG WITH READABLE COPY.

EXT.R(8)-2 COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY FROM REGISTRAR'S OFFICE OF THE PATTA CHIT

DEED NO.2909/1102 (ME) SRO ALANGAD (NOW ALUVA) ALONG WITH A READABLE COPY OF

THE SAME, EXECUTED BY ALIYARU KUNJU @ BAVA FAVOURING ELANGALLOOR SWAROOPAM.

...........6/- WP(C).No. 19431 of 2013 (D)

EXT.R(8)-3 COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.2907/1966 SRO EDAPPALLY

EXECUTED BY ELANGALLOOR SWAROOPAM TO HASSAN OF THE JENMAVAKASAM IN RESPECT

OF 15.98 ARES IN SURVEY NO.651/8B.

EXT.R(8)-4 COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.1988/1967 SRO EDAPPALLY

EXECUTED BY ELANGALLOOR SWAROOPAM TO HASSAN OF THE JENMAVAKASAM IN RESPECT

OF 15.600 ARES (SURVEY NO.651/8C).

EXT.R(8)-5 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF WP(C).NO. 23244/2012 (PLEADINGS

PORTION ALONE) FILED BY PETITIONERS, PENDING BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXT.R(8)-6 COPY OF THE RELEVANT PLEADING PORTION OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED

BY THE 11TH RESPONDENT HEREIN (6TH RESPONDENT IN THAT WRIT PETITION) IN

WP(C).NO. 23244/2012 PENDING BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXT.R(8)-7 COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 03/07/2013 FILED BY THE 11TH

RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER AT THE HEARING ON

04/07/2013.

EXT.R(8)-8 COPY OF THE THANDAPER REGISTER EXTRACT IN THANDAPER NO.5161 IN THE

NAME OF JOHN, S/O.PAPPACHAN.

EXT.R(8)-9 COPY OF THE THANDAPER REGISTER EXTRACT IN THANDAPER NO.4174 IN THE

NAME OF VELAYUDHAN AND THANKAPPAN SON OF KUTTAN.

EXT.R(8)-10 COPY OF THE RE-SURVEY THANDAPER REGISTER EXTRACT OF RE-SURVEY

THANDAPER NUMBER 4273 OF MANI, S/O.VALLON.

EXT.R(8)-11 COPY OF THE RE-SURVEY THANDAPER REGISTER EXTRACT OF RE-SURVEY



THANDAPER NUMBER 1869 OF THANKAPPAN AND VELAYUDHAN, SONS OF KUTTAN.

EXT.R(8)-12 COPY OF THE ENTIRE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 03/07/2013 WITH ALL

ANNEXURES THEREWITH FILED BY THE 11TH RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE LAND REVENUE

COMMISSIONER AT THE HEARING ON 04/07/2013.

EXT.R(8)-13 COPY OF THE ENTIRE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT WITH EXHIBITS FILED BY THE 11TH

RESPONDENT HEREIN AS 6TH RESPONDENT IN WP(C).NO. 23244/2012 IS PENDING BEFORE

THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXT.R(8)-14 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 26/08/2013 FILED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT

HEREIN BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM WITH RECEIPT OF

FABRICATED

EXT.P16 AND ALLIED MATTERS WITH ALL RECORDS. ...........7/- WP(C).No. 19431 of 2013

(D)

EXT.R(8)-15 COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 27/08/2013 ISSUED FROM THE CITY POLICE

COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE FOR RECEIVING

EXT.R(8)-14 COMPLAINT.

EXT.R17A COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 26/10/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE

17TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SECRETARYTO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT.

EXT.R17B COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 21/06/2011 FILED BY THE 11TH RESPONDENT

BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXT.R17C COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 24/09/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

EXT.R17D COPY OF THE LETTER NO.L3-28138/12 DATED 04/06/2012 ISSUED BY THE

DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

EXT.R17E COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 27/09/2011 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR,

VIGILANCE TO THE 17TH RESPONDENT.

EXT.R17F COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE PARTIES RECORDED BY THE 17TH

RESPONDENT.

EXT.R17G COPY OF THE WP(C).NO. 23244/2012 DATED 04/10/2012 FILED BY THE

PETITIONER BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXT.R17H COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE

COMMISSIONER TO THE 17TH RESPONDENT.

EXT.R27A COPY OF THE G.O. (RT) NO.134/73/ED DATED 07/05/1973 ISSUED BY THE

GOVERNMENT.

EXT.R27B COPY OF THE WP(C).NO. 23244/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS DATED

04/10/2012 WITHOUT EXHIBITS.

EXT.R27C COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 04/10/2011 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER

BEFORE THE TAHSILDAR.

EXT.R27D COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE WAS OBTAINED BY THIS RESPONDENT FROM THE

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN WP(C).NO. 23244/2012.

EXT.R27E COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION WAS OBTAINED BY THIS RESPONDENT FROM THE

COUNTER AFFIDAVIT OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT IN WP(C).NO. 23244/2012.

EXT.R27F COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09/08/20123 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND

PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADDL. TAHSILDAR.

EXT.R27G COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.222/1981 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF



COURT, ERNAKULAM.

//TRUE COPY// rs.

P.S.TO JUDGE

"C.R"

HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

------------------------

W.P.C Nos.19431 & 19462 Of 2013

----------------------

Dated this the 28th day of March, 2014.

J U D G M E N T

Both writ petitions are filed seeking CBI investigation.

2. Though the writ petitioners in both writ petitions are different, the facts andrelief sought for are similar, common questions of fact and law arises forconsideration and therefore, both cases were heard jointly and a common judgmentis passed. The writ petitions were heard on 25.11.13, 3.12.13, 16.12.13, 19.12.13,2.1.14, 3.1.14, 6.1.14, 7.114, 8.1.14, 9.1.14, 10.1.14, 15.1.14, 16.1.14, 20.1.14,30.1.14, 31.1.14, 10.2.14, 11.2.14, 18.2.14, 19.2.14, 25.2.14, 26.2.14, 4.3.14,11.3.14, 12.3.14 & 13.3.2014.

3. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.19431/13 claim title and possession in respect ofan extent of 116 cents in Survey No. 651/8A, 651/8B and 651/8C of ThrikkakaraNorth Village. Respondents 1 to 7 are the State of Kerala and the Officials of theRevenue, Police Department and Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau respectively.Respondents 8 to 13, who are the party respondents, are the contesting parties.Respondents 14 to 17 are Revenue officials. Respondent No.18 is the Gunman (nowunder suspension) of the Chief Minister of Kerala, against whom various allegationshave been made. Respondent No.19 is the wife of respondent No.18. RespondentNo.19 was working in Survey Department and she was transferred to the office ofthe Commissioner of Land Revenue on 17.1.2012 and she joined duty on 17.2.2012.Allegations are made against her. Respondent No.20 is a private party. RespondentNo.21 is the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation.

4. The petitioners in W.P.(C).No.19431/2013 traced their title to the property asfollows:- The property was outstanding in the possession of Thekkesamooha Madamin Jenmom right. In 1088 M.E., Lakshmana Ayyer of Thekkesamooha Madom grantedlease of the property in favour of Ahammed Pareeth. In the year 1103 M.E. Kunjan



Marakkar, son of Ahammed Pareeth, got a renewal of the lease from LakshmanaAyyer. The jenmom right of the property was transferred by the jenmy to AliyarKunju as per document No. 106 of 1102 M.E. A partition took place in the family ofAliyar Kunju in the year 1114 M.E and the property in dispute was allotted to HamsaKoya, son of Aliyar Kunju, who sold his rights in the property to Muhammed,another son of Kunjan Marakkar, as per sale deed No. 1186 of 1957 (Ext.P1). Evenbefore that Kunjan Marakkar had attorned to Hamsa Koya and the lease wasrenewed in favour of Kunjan Marakkar as per document No.2335 of 1116 M.E. In theyear 1960, Muhammed, son of Kunjan Marakkar, sold the property to his brotherKadar Pillai. Kadar Pillai is the husband of writ petitioner No.1 and father of theother writ petitioners. Out of the extent of 1.16 acres, which Kadar Pillai got as perthe sale deed of 1960, he transferred an extent of 49 cents to his wife, the firstpetitioner as per document No.872 of 1960. Kadar Pillai died in 1980 and theproperties were partitioned among his legal representatives, as per documentNo.362 of 1982. Mutation was effected as per the allotment made in the partitiondeed and the subsequent transfers were made between the legal representatives ofKadar Pillai. The petitioners state that the original Thandaper numbers were 8826and 8597 and after mutation effected as per the partition deed of 1982, theThandaper number was changed as T.P.No.9074. It is also stated that after re-survey, the Thandaper number is 2127 and later, the Thandaper was changed as9365 to 9367 on the basis of the partition deed and subsequent transfers.

5. Respondents 8 and 10 to 13 in the writ petition filed O.S.No.617 of 2007 on thefile of the Sub Court, Ernakulam against the writ petitioners to cancel partitiondeed No.362 of 1982. According to the writ petitioners, the plaintiffs inO.S.No.617/2007, in collusion and connivance with respondents 18, 19 and 20presented fabricated documents before the civil court. On the basis of thecomplaint filed by the writ petitioners, Crime No.1003/2007 was registered by theKalamassery Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 469and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. It is seen from the counteraffidavit filed by respondent No.4 that final report was filed on 9.1.2009 in CrimeNo.1003/2007.

6. Respondent No.8 filed O.S.No.744/2010 before the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam toset aside document No.8782/2004 executed by the first petitioner to the secondpetitioner in respect of a portion of the property in dispute.

7. There was an earlier suit filed as O.S.No.222/1981 on the file of the AdditionalMunsiff Court, Ernakulam for partition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for thewrit petitioners that the said suit was filed by Muhammed, son of Kunjan Marakkaragainst writ petitioners 1 to 3 for partition of tenancy rights. In the said suit,Muhammed contended that he had transferred only the jenmom right as per saledeed of 1960 to his brother Kadar Pillai, the predecessor-in-interest of the writpetitioners and that he had not transferred the tenancy rights to Kadar Pillai. Thiscontention was negatived by the civil court, which was finally disposed of in S.ANo.136 of 1994 by the High Court as per Ext.P11 judgment. In Ext.P11, this Courtfinally held that the properties belonged to Kadar Pillai exclusively.



8. While the civil suits were pending before the civil courts, on 21.6.2011,respondent No.11(Abdul Salam) filed a petition before the District Collector,alleging that the writ petitioners fraudulently got the Thandapers registered in theirnames and paid land Revenue. On 21.6.2011, the District Collector forwarded thatpetition to the Tahsildar, Kanayannoor for taking necessary action as per Rules. Onthe same day, the Additional Tahsildar forwarded that petition to the VillageOfficer, Thrikkakara North. On 24.6.2011, the Village Officer, Thrikkakara Northsent Ext.P12 detailed report to the Taluk Office, stating that the land in questionbelonged to Elangalloor Swaroopam and Pattayam was not obtained by Kadar Pillaior his successors. It was also reported that in respect of 12 cents of land, theThandaper originally stood in the name of one Vallon Mani. It was stated in thereport that the old records and re- survey records do not tally. On 28.6.2011, theAdditional Tahsildar issued a direction to the Village Officer to stop accepting basictax and to issue notice to the parties. On 28.7.2011, the Additional Tahsildarwithdrew the order directing the Village Officer not to accept basic tax. Aggrievedby the said direction dated 28.7.2011, respondent No.11 (Abdul Salam) filed apetition before the Commissioner of Land Revenue, requesting not to accept basictax from the petitioners and not to issue any possession certificate to them. On9.8.2011, the Commissioner of Land Revenue forwarded the said petition to theDistrict Collector, Ernakulam and the Tahsildar, Kanayannoor for urgent report. TheAdditional Tahsildar endorsed the letter to the Village Officer for submitting report.On 24.9.2011, the Village Officer reported that the properties stood in the name ofthe writ petitioners and that pattayam was not obtained. The Village Officerreiterated the stand taken by him earlier. On 12.12.2011, the Tahsildar submittedExt.P15 report to the Commissioner of Land Revenue stating that the matter issubjudice as suits are pending before the civil courts. He also reported that till thedisposal of the civil suits, all proceedings in the Revenue Department in respect ofthe lands concerned should be stopped. On receipt of Ext.P15 report, theCommissioner of Land Revenue issued Ext.P18 letter dated 4.1.2012 to respondentNo.11 stating that in view of the pendency of civil and criminal cases in respect ofthe disputed property, Revenue Department could not take any action on thepetition filed by respondent No.11.

9. The matter should have come to an end by the issue of Ext.P18. But, theproceedings were again initiated by the contesting respondents. Respondent No.11submitted another petition dated 14.3.2012 (Ext.P19) to the Minister for Revenue,reiterating his earlier contentions. The Government forwarded Ext.P19 petition tothe Commissioner of Land Revenue.

10. On receipt of the letter dated 9.4.2012 from the Government, theCommissioner of Land Revenue issued Ext.P20 letter dated 18.4.2012 to the DistrictCollector, Ernakulam to submit a report, after verifying the records. The DistrictCollector was also directed to furnish information with respect to six questionsmentioned in Ext.P20. On receipt of Ext.P20, the District Collector directed theAdditional Tahsildar to submit a report. The Additional Tahsildar (respondent No.17)issued Ext.P24 report dated 11.7.2012 containing almost the same details whichwere furnished by his predecessor in office in Ext.P15. The District Collector, in



turn, sent Ext.P25 report to the Commissioner of Land Revenue.

11. It would appear that the office of the Commissioner of Land Revenue made anote that as per the letter dated 9.4.2012 issued by the Government, theCommissioner of Land Revenue was expected to submit a report to theGovernment. However, the Commissioner of Land Revenue issued Ext.P26 letter tothe District Collector to cancel Thandaper Nos.9365, 9366, 9367 and 21007, and toreport compliance of the same. On receipt of Ext.P26, the District Collectorforwarded the same to the Additional Tahsildar, the Additional Tahsildar to theVillage Officer and finally the Thandapers were cancelled by the Village Officer.

12. The petitioners allege that the Revenue officials reopened the matters, whichwere already closed, which led ultimately to the cancellation of Thandapers, at theinfluence of respondent No.18, the Gunman (now under suspension) of the ChiefMinister of Kerala with the active assistance of his wife respondent No.19. Thepetitioners contend that they were even denied an opportunity of being heard bythe Revenue officials and everything was done in a hurry and that too, when thecivil suits are pending. In the writ petition (Edappally case), the petitioners allegedas follows:

"31. Respondents 8 to 13 & 20 in collusion and conspiracy withrespondents 18 & 19 bribed, compelled and influenced, respondents 14 to17 to forge and fabricate false documents, reports and records, includingconcoction of false Thandaper in the name of one Vallon Mani, for thepurpose of defeating the title of the petitioners over 116 cents ofvaluable land situated in Thrikkakara North Village in Sy.Nos.651/8A, 8B,and 8C at Pathadippalam. This was to defeat the title of petitioners tocause undue enrichment for respondents 8 to 13 & 20 through misuse andabuse of official position & powers by respondents 14 to 19. The 18threspondent is a Gunman in the office of the Chief Minister of State ofKerala and his personal influence in the highest political andadministrative echelons of Government of Kerala as notoriety. Thoughthe petitioners had filed numerous complaints, Exhibits P28 to P32before the highest officers of the State, even today, not even a crime isregistered and no investigation has been conducted or even initiatedagainst respondents 8 to 20. In the face of such tremendous politicalinfluence, filing of an ordinary complaint before the police will beabsolutely useless, as ordinary police officers, even upto the level ofCommissioner, will be helpless in the face of notoriety, influence andpower yielded by the 18th respondent".

13. The Statement in Ext.P31 complaint assumes relevance in the context. It isstated thus: "The former Gunman of Chief Minister, Salim Raj is the brother ofNoorjahan(R9), that she is the the wife of K.H.Abdul Majeed (R8), that after Sri.Ommen Chandy became the Chief Minister, "Super Chief Minister" Salim Raj, AbdulMajeed, his wife Noorjahan, Abdul Salam(R11), Muhammadali (R10), Dillep(R20) andC.K.Jayaram(R6) conspired with Thrikkakkara Village Officer Sabu, Special Village



Officer Murad, former Additional Tahsildar of Kanayannoor Taluk, Sunilal,Krishnakumari, Head clerk of Ernakulam District Collectorate, Shamsad (R19) of LandRevenue Commissionerate, fabricated false records, destroyed the original records,issued false orders and reports by misusing the official position with intention tocheat the petitioners and attempted to usurp our land". Counter affidavits werefiled by respondent No.4, respondents 8 to 13 jointly, R20, R16, R17, R14, R18 & R19jointly, R26 & R27. Additional counter affidavit was filed by respondents 8 to 13jointly and R17 & R14. A statement was filed by the 24th respondent and 1strespondent. 14. The 4th respondent in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit statedthus: "It is submitted that the verification of records produced by the complainantand the records of the Village Office and Taluk Office etc, connected with theownership of the land, is going on. The investigation so far conducted in this casemakes it clear that a very detailed investigation is necessary to find out the exactfact regarding the allegations by examining and fortifying documents related toownership and transfer of the property for the last several years." 15. The partyrespondents 8 to 13 in their counter affidavits inter alia stated that the writpetition is an abuse of the process of law and it was an "attempt to media sensitizeand cover up the misdeeds and fraud committed by the petitioners, in the wake ofsome political issues in which various government functionary's names have beendragged by the media including allegedly the gunman of the Chief Minister etc". It isalso stated therein that since the gunman is distantly related to the 9th respondent,the petitioners are trying to drag him also to the case. The respondents 8 to 13 alsocontended that the writ petitioners have no title to the property and that thejenmom rights in respect of the property (to an extent of 78 cents) vested inrespondents 8 to 13 and their family as per registered sale deed Nos.2907/1966 and1988/1967 of SRO, Edappally executed by Elangalloor Swaroopam to Hassan, thepredecessor- in-interest of respondents 8 to 13. Suit by respondents 8 to 13 asplaintiffs numbered as O.S.No.617/2007 on the file of the Sub Court, Ernakulam isfiled against the present petitioners for cancellation of the partnership deed allegedto have been falsely executed in the petitioners' family including the properties ofthe respondents. Learned counsel for respondents 8 to 13 Sri.M.P.Ramanathan onthe strength of document No.2907/66 and 1988/67 produced as Exts.R8(3) & R8(4)contended that they have purchased the jenmom right from Elangallor Swaroopamand therefore petitioners in the writ petition have no right over the property. Itappears that as per Ext.R8(3) and (4), respondents obtained jenmom right over theproperty. There is no mention about the persons who are in possession andenjoyment of the property. It cannot be disputed that the petitioners are inpossession and enjoyment of the property by virtue of Ext.R8(1) patta chittu of1064/1102 ME (1924 AD) of SRO, Alangad executed by the predecessor-in-interest ofthe petitioners, Sri.Aliyar Kunju in favour of Elangalloor Swaroopam. Ext.R8(1) is adeed of transfer of lease executed by Rama Lakshmana Iyer in favour of Sri.AliyarKunju, who is the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Ext.R8(2) is the pattachit No.2909/1102 ME of SRO, Alangad. Aliyar Kunju, who got tenancy assignmentright as per Ext.R8(1), executed another patta chit in favour of ElangalloorSwaroopam registered as document No.2909/1102 ME. Certified copy of the saidpatta chit is marked as Ext.R8(2). The documents referred to above are documentsof transfer of leasehold rights. Respondents 8 to 13 are claiming jenmom right over



the property to an extent of 78 cents by virtue of registered sale deed No.2907/66and 1988/1967 of SRO, Edappally executed by Elangalloor Swaroopam to thepredecessor of respondents 8 to 13. The said documents were produced along withcounter affidavit filed by respondents 8 to 13 as Ext.R8(3) and (4). Going by thedocument, the predecessors of respondents 8 to 13 do not get possession of theproperties. At that time the properties were outstanding with the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners. Petitioners, by virtue of said deeds, are in possessionand enjoyment of the properties right from 1102 ME (1924 AD) and continuing theirpossession till date. Learned counsel Sri.M.P.Ramanathan contended that petitionersand their predecessors only had leasehold right and never got assignment ofjenmom/ownership rights and were paying taxes as lessees. According to thepetitioners misusing and misrepresenting thandaper numbers put for the purpose ofcollecting leasehold tax, have fraudulently mis-represented the same thandapernumbers for jenmavakasam. Learned counsel submits that in the prior deeds ofpetitioners namely, document Nos.871/1960 of SRO, Edappally and 872/1960 of SRO,Edappally, it is fraudulently and falsely stated that the property is comprised inpattayam No.5681. It is said in that context, the Revenue authorities requiredproduction of the pattayam or deed of purchase of jenmavakasam, as no suchpattayam exists nor deed of purchase of jenmavakasam exists, they were unable toproduce the documents. The learned counsel also submits that a look at Ext.R8(1)deed No.1064/1102 ME (1927) of SRO, Alangad would show that it is a deed of salewhereby the leasehold right of Lakhsmana Iyer is sold to Aliyar Kunju. The learnedcounsel also placed reliance on Ext.R8(2) ethirpattacheetu executed by Aliyar Kunju@ Bava in favour of jenmi/lessor from whom the lease is taken and registered asdocument No.2909/1102 ME clearly stating that, what Aliyar Kunju has got as perExt.R8(1) is a venpatta avakasam (lease) and the deed is in reiteration of freshterms of lease. The learned counsel also contends that the petitioner wilfullysuppressed Ext.R8(2) lease deed as it fully exposed petitioners false claim ofjenmavakasam having been purchased. It is contended that the disputed propertybelongs to Elangalloor Swaroopam vaka or pnadaram vaka only and that the jenmomright of the properties to an extent of 78 cents is vested in these respondents andtheir family obtained by registered sale deed No.2907/1966 and 1988/1967 of SRO,Edappally executed by Elangalloor Swaroopam to the predecessors of respondents.The said documents are marked as Exts.R8(3) and R8(4). According to the counsel,after perusing the revenue records and after considering all the facts, the revenueauthorities directly cancelled illegal thandaper numbers which is the subject matterof W.P.(C).No.23244/2012. The learned counsel also placed reliance on Ext.R8(10)copy of the re-survey thandaper register extract of re-survey thandaper No.4273 ofMani, S/o.Vallon and Ext.R8(11) copy of the re-survey thandaper register extract ofre-survey thandaper No.1869 of Thankappan and Velayudhan and contended thatwhen re-survey was implemented, the thandaper of Mani, S/o.Vallon bearingNo.8826 in which he paid tax inclusive of the year 1991 was given a new thandaperNo.4273, co-related with the new thandaper number of Velayudhan and Thankappanto their remaining properties given as 1869. According to the learned counsel thereport of the Revenue Secretary is unreliable, incorrect and only to be brushedaside. The two reports submitted by the Revenue Secretary in the two writpetitions would show that Revenue Secretary had gone through the records



forwarded by the Registrar General of this Court including the original Revenuerecords of respective Village Offices, Taluk Offices, note files of the office of theDistrict Collectors concerned and the office files of the Commissioner of LandRevenue and additional information provided by the petitioners as well as therespondents. I do not find that any sustainable reasons are made out for not placingreliance on the findings and observations of the Revenue Secretary.

16. The learned senior counsel, Sri.K.Ramakumar, who is appearing for respondents8 to 13 in W.P.(C).No.19431/2013 (Edappally case) contended that the StateGovernment had constituted a special investigation team for the investigation intothe crimes and in the circumstances prayer for CBI investigation has becomeinfructuous. The learned senior counsel also pointed out that in the complaintsmarked as Exts.P28-31 there is no prayer for investigation by outside agency andtherefore, the writ petition filed seeking CBI investigation is an afterthought. Inthis connection the learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in both casesSri.Dinesh R. Shenoy invited the attention of this Court to the reply affidavit filedby the petitioners dated 19.12.2013. In the reply affidavit the claim of the 4threspondent that prompt and effective action had been taken by the respondents isdenied. It is pointed out that direction was issued by this court in both writpetitions to seize telephone records of the party respondents and the revenuerecords concerned for the purpose of preserving the evidence. Since the personswho have committed the crime were continuing in the same position, it issubmitted that the said direction was not complied with and at the same time the4th respondent and State filed W.A.Nos.1208/2013 and 1364/2013 within a daychallenging the order directing seizure and preservation of the evidence. It issubmitted that even though there was no order affecting the rights of the State orthe 4th respondent and the police force the State was not an aggrieved party at all,yet they have challenged the order before the Division Bench. They obtained anorder of stay. The second portion of the order directing seizure of the revenuerecords was not stayed by the Division Bench. It is said that the said order was notcomplied with till date by the police or official respondents. Ext.R4(b) is the truecopy of the letter dated 5.8.2013 issued by the Additional Director General ofPolice forwarding the representation submitted by the petitioners before theopposition leader to the Home Department for appropriate action. It is submittedby the counsel for the petitioners that Ext.R4(b) letter did not see the light of theday till 9.10.2013 after this Court had been forced to make scathing remarks on the4th respondent. It is also pointed out that vigilance enquiry was initiated only afterthe order passed by this court on 28.10.2013 in Edappally case. It is contended thateven though Crime No.1646/2013 is said to have been registered on 17.8.2013, thishas also not seen the light of the day. Petitioners also produced copy of the FIRNo.1928/2013 of Kalamassery Police Station. The newspaper reports in this regardare also produced as Exts.P69 & P70. It is further stated in the reply affidavit thatafter petitioners have filed complaint before the Additional Director General ofPolice and pursuant thereto and the huge hue and cry in the State media over theturn of events, investigation was withdrawn from the Deputy Commissioner ofPolice and handed over to his junior, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkakara.Later, since it was found improper, the case was ordered to be handed over to



Kottayam Crime Branch CBCID. It is pointed out that no steps have been taken byany investigating team to investigate the matter. It is also pointed out that noproper investigation is being conducted. It is clear from the fact that even thedirection in Ext.R4(b) was not complied with. As per Ext.R4(b) it was directed tofile a preliminary report within seven days and investigation report within 30 days.It is submitted that no such report have been filed in the case even todayestablishing clearly the fact that the investigation is not proceeding properly and isbeing diverted due to unseen influences and political interference. It is seriouslyalleged that obviously the investigation by the State Police is stultified by the highinfluences working for the party respondents. It is also submitted that investigationis being made not into the allegations in the complaint and the truth andgenuineness of the same but into the title of the parties, which is totally uncalledfor and beyond the scope of investigation, which is regarding manipulation,forgery, destruction of records in the Department of Revenue and submission ofdeliberate false reports. It is also alleged that in the normal course, the policefollows the method of tracing telephone records of the accused. It is said thatnothing of that has been sought or attempted in this case. The contention of thelearned senior counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar that the State Government had constituteda special investigation team for the investigation into the crimes and in thecircumstances prayer for CBI investigation has become infructuous is without anybasis so far the State Government had not constituted a Special Investigation Teamfor investigation. It is true that the 4th respondent by order dated 3.10.2013transferred Crime No.1646/2013 for further investigation by the CBCID. TheSuperintendent of Police, CBCID, Economic Offence Wing-II, Kottayam took overinvestigation in the matter. Going by the statement filed by the 4th respondent andstated by the Superintendent of Police, CBCID, it is seen that no SpecialInvestigation Team was constituted to conduct the investigation. The prayer for CBI investigation has become infructuous is without any substance. Writ petitions arefiled for a direction to the CBI to depute a senior officer to constitute a team andto investigate the various offences and illegal acts committed by respondents andothers or at any rate to constitute a Special Investigation Team under the leadershipof an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police. The prayer denotesthat for any reason CBI investigation cannot be ordered, the petitioners prayed thatat any rate Special Investigation Team may be constituted for the investigation.Petitioners denied the claim of the 4th respondent that prompt and effectiveaction had been taken by the police. It is pointed out that the direction issued bythis Court in both writ petitions to seize telephone records of the partyrespondents and the revenue records concerned for the purpose of preserving theevidence is not complied with. It is also pointed out by the learned counselSri.Dinesh R.Shenoy that no action was taken in response to Ext.R4(b) letter, thatthe recommendation by the 4th respondent was kept in cold storage for over threemonths speaks the volumes of influences and political reach of the party respondents. Vigilance enquiry was initiated only after passing of the order by thisCourt dated 28.10.2013 though several complaints were filed narrating the gravityof the offences committed. The Crime No.1646/2013 was registered only on17.8.2013 i.e., only during the pendency of the writ petition. The learned counselalso pointed out the conduct of the Deputy Commissioner of Police who has



commenced investigation, that he directed the Kalamassery Police to register caseagainst the petitioners on the basis of false complaints filed by some other partyrespondents. It is submitted that the petitioners have filed complaints before theAdditional Director General of Police, pursuant thereto and due to the huge hue andcry in the state media over the turn of events, investigation was withdrawn fromthe Deputy Commissioner of Police and handed over to his junior, AssistantCommissioner of Police, Thrikkakara. Later since it was found improper, case washanded over to Kottayam Branch CBCID. Due to the aforesaid turn of events,petitioners alleged that obviously investigation by the State Police is stultified bythe high officials working for the party respondents. 17. The learned SeniorGovernment Pleader Sri.Muhammed Shah referred to paragraph 5 & 6 of thestatement filed by the 4th respondent in W.P.(C).No.19431/2013. In paragraph 5 & 6it is inter alia stated that Ext.P31 complaint was received by the 6th respondentonly on 11.7.2013 and immediately it was forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner ofPolice, Kochi City for enquiry and necessary action vide endorsement No.131/7464/13 dated 15.7.2013. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, while conductingenquiry recorded the statement of the petitioners 1 & 2 on 17.8.2013 and that sincethe statement of the 2nd petitioner revealed commission of cognizable offence,the Deputy Commissioner of Police forwarded the statement to the Station HouseOffier, Kalamassery for registering a crime and investigation of the case. Inparagraph 6 of the statement it is stated that Crime No.1646/2013 was registeredfor the offences punishable under Section 468, 471, 511 & 420 IPC by theKalamassery Police Station. It is also suggested by the Additional Director General ofPolice, South Zone, that for ensuring credible, effective and impartial investigation the case requires to be transferred to a Special Investigation Officerof the CBCID. Accordingly, the 4th respondent by order dated 3.10.2013 transferredCrime No.1646/2013 for further investigation by the CBCID. The Additional DirectorGeneral of Police (Crimes) was directed to personally supervise the case and aSuperintendent of Police was directed to investigate the case. The investigatingofficer questioned the Village Officer, Special Officer and recorded detailedstatement from the complainant. It is further stated that investigation so farconducted in this case makes it clear that a very detailed investigation is necessaryto find out the exact fact regarding the allegations by examining and fortifying therelated ownership and transfer of property for the last several years.

18. The learned senior counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar relied on the decisions of the ApexCourt in Sakkiri Vasu v. State of UP and others (2008 (2) SCC 409) and Secretary,Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services, UP and others v. Sahngoo Ram Aryaand another (2002(5) SCC 521). In the first decision the Apex Court observed thus:

"We often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not beenregistered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done bythe police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition underSection 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encouragethis practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters and relegatethe petitioner to his alternating remedy, first under Section 154(3) and Section 36Cr.P.C before the police officers concerned, and that is of no avail, by approaching



the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C".

In the second decision referred above, the Apex Court held thus:

"While the High Court has power under Article 226 to direct an enquiry by CBI, adecision to direct an enquiry by CBI against a person can only be done if the HighCourt after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that suchmaterial does disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI or anyother similar agency. The same cannot be done as a matter of routine or merelybecause a party makes some such allegations. It is not sufficient to have suchmaterial in the pleadings. On the contrary, there is a need for the High Court onconsideration of such pleadings to come to the conclusion that the material beforeit is sufficient to direct such an enquiry by CBI. While directing an enquiry by CBI,the High Court must record a prima facie finding as to the truth of such allegationswith reference to the reply filed".

The learned senior counsel also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reportedin Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited etc. v. Union of India (1975 SC 460) andcontended that CBI investigation shall be ordered only if preceded by demand.Placing reliance on the decision reported in Aleque Padamsree and others v. Unionof India and others (2007 (6) SCC 171) the learned senior counsel contended thatwhenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commissionof offence which is a cognizable one there is a duty to register the FIR. The courseavailable, when the police does not carry out the statutory requirements underSection 154 and that in case the police officials fails to do so, the modalities to beadopted are as set out in Section 190 r/w Section 200 of the Code of CivilProcedure. It is open to any person aggrieved by the inaction of the police officialsin registering the FIR, the modalities to be adopted and observed are in terms ofthe aforesaid provisions. 18(a). The learned senior counsel Sri.S.Sreekumarappearing on behalf of the 17th respondent in Edappally case denied the allegationsagainst her in the writ petition. It is contended that the allegation that the 17threspondent and others had created false documents, misleading reports and causedthe Thandaper of the petitioner cancelled is false. He also denied the allegation ofthe petitioners that 17th respondent colluded and misused her official positionunder the influence of respondents 8 to 13 and 18 to 20. The learned senior counselalso contended that the petitioners failed to prove any prima facie case to warrantpolice enquiry that the remedy available to the petitioners is to approach thecriminal court with a private complaint if their grievances are turned down by thepolice. Placing reliance on the decision reported in Secretary, Minor Irrigation &Rural Engineering Services, UP and others v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another (2002(5)SCC 521) the learned senior counsel contended that to direct an enquiry by CBIagainst a person can only be done if the High Court after considering the materialon record comes to a conclusion that such material does disclose a prima facie casecalling for an investigation by CBI or any other similar agency, and the same cannotbe done as matter of routine or merely because a party makes some suchallegations. 18(b). The learned counsel for the 27th respondent in Edappally caseSri.Nagaraj Narayanan placing reliance on Ext.R8 (1) document No.1064/1927



(1102ME) and Ext.R8(2) document No.2909/1927 produced by respondents 8 to 13contended that Elangalloor Swaroopam is the jenmom right holder of the disputedproperty and continues to be the jenmom right holder of 38 cents in said surveynumbers and jenmom right over 78 cents land was conveyed by Swaroopam toHassan, Illickal House, who is the predecessor-in-interest of respondents 8 to 13vide deed Nos.1988/1967 and 2907/1966 of Edappally SRO. The learned counselsubmits that the land claimed by the petitioners belongs to the Swaroopam and theSwaroopam has never transferred the jenmom right to the petitioners or to theirpredecessors-in-interest nor any documents were produced by them to show thetransfer of jenmom right from this respondent to the petitioners or theirpredecessors-in-interest. It is also pointed out that the documents produced by thepetitioners would clearly reveal that 6th respondent has only transferred theleasehold right to the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioners. It is submittedthat Ext.R8(2) patta chit deed No.2909/1102 (ME) executed by Aliyar Kunju in favourof Swaroopam is willfully suppressed by the petitioners. Placing reliance onExt.R8(2) it is pointed out that Aliyar Kunju clearly recited that the said leasecovered by document No.Ext.R8(1) document 1064/1102 (ME) is the leased propertyand that he executed the document in favour of Swaroopam admitting himself aslessee and that he agreed to remit the lease amount due to the Swaroopampromptly and in case of default he will pay interest to the Swaroopam. It is alsopointed out that in Ext.R8(2) there is a recital that the land belongs to theSwaroopam.

19. This Court vide interim order dated 23.10.2012 directed the Principal Secretaryto Government, Revenue Department, to conduct an independent and fair enquiryin the matter and to submit a report without giving room for any complaints. In theinterim order this Court observed after discussing the facts and circumstances indetail thus: " This Court is of the view that before passing final order in this matter,an enquiry will have to be conducted regarding the alleged foul play, falsification,forgery, committed in regard to the records maintained by the RevenueDepartment. I direct the Principal Secretary to Government, Department ofRevenue, Government of Kerala to conduct a comprehensive enquiry into thematter immediately as aforesaid and submit a report covering the involvement, ifany, of respondents 8 to 20 and others. The principal Secretary shall also enquireand report specifically the involvement of respondents 18 & 19 and the role playedby them in the office of the Collectorates concerned, Office of the Land RevenueCommissioner, Office of respondents 14 to 17, other offices and the involvement ofany others in the helm of affairs of the State". This order was passed in W.P.(C)No.19431/2013. Similar interim order was passed in the connected W.P.(C)No.19462/2013.

20. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, submitted detailed reports. TheSecretary had gone through the original Revenue records of respective VillageOffices, Taluk Offices, note files of the office of the RDO, Trivandrum, note files ofthe District Collectors concerned and the files of the Commissioner of LandRevenue. He also heard petitioners and contesting respondents. He had takenstatements of the officials of Village Offices, Taluk Offices, Collectorate and Office



of the Commissioner of Land Revenue.

21. The gist of the report of the Revenue Secretary in W.P.(C).No.19431/2013(Edappally case) is summarised under the head 'observations' in page 26. It is statedthat; "As per the documents bearing numbers 2727/1939 [Annexure XV], 1186/1957[Annexure XXV], 871/1960 [Annexure XXVI] and 872/1960 [Annexure XXVII] Sri. KadirPillai and 1st petitioner Smt. Shereefa acquired properties admeasuring 116.000cents in survey numbers 651/8A, 651/8B and 651/8C. Moreover as per the judgmentin O.S.No.222/1981 of the Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, A.S.No.110/1987 ofthe Additional Sub Court-III Ernakulam and finally High Court in S.A.No.136/1994 on9.7.2010 categorically stated that "the lower appellate Court was correct in holdingthat the properties belong to Late Kadir Pillai exclusively". Smt. Shareefa, Nazer &Noushad and Smt. Shimitha are the patta holders as per Rule 15 of the Transfer ofRegistry Rules. Copy of Thandaper number 9074 [Annexure XXXV] shows that theThandaper was created from Thandaper No.8826 through TR 402/83. Since 9074belonged to Smt. Shereefa, Thandaper 8826 can only belong to none other than Sri.Kadir Pillai. While lineage of the properties in question is considered there is noother option but to believe that the Tax paid receipt is genuine unless and untilproved otherwise". Under the head findings and observations at page 41, thefollowing findings were entered by the Revenue Secretary. "The reports furnishedby the Village Officer, Thrikkakara North Village dated 24.6.2011 and 24.9.2011, thereports furnished by the Additional Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk on 12.12.2011 and11.7.2012 are partly devoid of facts available in the Revenue records and highlymisleading". It is further reported in the same page that "the Village Officer,Thrikkakkra North Village and Additional Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk should beresponsible for submitting a report based on distorted information which lead towrong decision making by superior authorities". "Both the Village Officer as well asthe Additional Tahsildar have misinterpreted the Revenue Rules pertaining toSettlement Register and the entires of Thandaper No. 8826 which is shown in thename of Mr.Vallon Mani. The Thandaper No. 8826 as mentioned earlier, wasoriginally in the name of Mr.Kadir Pillai which became "soonya thandaper"" . "TheJunior Superintendent and the Deputy Collector (LR) in the office of theCollectorate, Ernakulam have not examined and verified the report submitted bythe Additional Tahsildar before sending their remarks to the office of theCommissioner of Land Revenue". "However, the orders are issued by the Office ofthe Commissioner of Land Revenue stating that the Thandaper numbers in the nameof the petitioners should be cancelled in accordance with law. Again at this point,Additional Tahsildar and the Village Officer have failed in following the prescribedRules before cancellation of the Thandaper which are in the name of thepetitioners". "Additional Tahsildar has committed procedural irregularity by notfollowing the Rules as contemplated in the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, soonafter the receipt of the direction from the District Collector, Ernakulam". I stronglysee a proactive involvement of the Additional Tahsildar in this entire issue. Underwhat circumstances and "pressures", she acted upon certainly needs acomprehensive police investigation.

22. In Writ Appeal No.1861/2013 filed against the interim order in W.P.



(C).No.19431/2013 directing the Secretary to Government, Revenue Department toenquire and report, the Division Bench held that; "We entertained a doubt as towhether the whole episode originated due to the letter issued by the Commissionerof Land Revenue on 4.9.2012(Ext.P26) while the Commissioner, Land Revenue hadtaken a diametrically opposite view in Ext.P18 order dated 4.1.2012. Going by anyinterpretation, the Commissioner of Land Revenue had no jurisdiction at all to issuea letter like Ext.P26, which according to us created the whole difficulty in thematter and dragged the parties to various courts and forums and that theCommissioner of Land Revenue exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him underlaw. The Division Bench found that cancellation of Thandaper was done by, or asdirected by an authority, which had no power at all to do so, after that authorityfound in Ext.P18 order that pending decision of the civil court, the Department ofRevenue cannot intervene in the matter". It was held that: "Tinkering with entriesin the Revenue records would be an effective tool in the hands of land mafia andgrabbers of immovable property. The Revenue officials should not aid such landgrabbers and land mafia, by arrogating to themselves jurisdiction which they do notpossess". The Division Bench also noticed that; "In recent years several instances ofland grabbing at the instance of land mafia were reported and that in suchinstances, they take the aid of Revenue records and the changes made in suchrecords to suit their convenience. It was observed that the rights of the rightfulowners would be defeated in such transactions, but the rights of the innocentpurchasers also would be defeated".

23. Exts.P28 to P32 are the complaints lodged by the petitioners before the highestofficers in the State in W.P.(C). No.19431/2013. In the complaints it is specificallystated that the respondents 8 to 13 and 20 in collusion and conspiracy withrespondents 18 & 19, bribed, compelled and influenced respondents 14 to 17 toforge and fabricate false documents, reports and records including concoction offalse Thandaper in the name of Vallon Mani for the purpose of defeating the title ofthe petitioners over 116 cents of valuable land situated in Thrikkakkara NorthVillage in Sy.Nos.651/8A, 8B & 8C at Pathadippalam. It was also stated thatrespondents made an attempt to defeat the title, to cause undue enrichment forrespondents 8 to 13 and 20 through misuse and abuse of official position and powersof respondents 14 to 19. Serious allegations are raised against the Gunman of theChief Minister of State of Kerala. It is alleged that the 18th respondent is theGunman in the office of the Chief Minister of Kerala and his personal influence inthe highest political and administrative echelons of Government of Kerala is knownto all persons. It is stated in the complaints and in the writ petition that thoughnumerous complaints were lodged before the highest officers of the State, eventoday, not even a crime is registered and no investigation has been conducted orinitiated against respondents 8 to 20. In the writ petition it is stated that on theface of such tremendous political influence filing of an ordinary complaint beforethe police will be absolutely useless as ordinary police officers, even up to the levelof Commissioner, will be helpless in the case of notoriety, influence and powerwielded by the 18th respondent.

24. The connected writ petition namely, W.P.(C). No.19462/2013 was filed for



similar reliefs on the basis of similar allegations. The petitioners claimed title over12.27 acres of land in Sy.Nos.1279, 1280, 1281 to 1288 of Kadakampally Village,Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. Petitioners are aggrieved by the alleged willful inactionon the part of the official respondents 1 to 5 to take action in the matter ofcriminal offences committed by respondents 6 to 32 by forging and fabricating falseThandaper Nos.1602 and 3587 of Kadakampally Village in the name of Abdul RehmanKunju, the predecessor of respondents 8 to 25, and the creation of false andfabricated documents including sale deeds in respect of 12.27 acres of land inSy.Nos.1203, 1204, 1232, 1236, 1238, 1240, 1241, 1270, 1279 to 1288, 1388, 1409 ofKadakampally Village. The allegation is that respondents 8 to 25 had manipulatedand created false Thandaper No.1602 through forgery and falsification of records incollusion with respondents 29 to 31. It is also alleged that respondents 6, 7 & 26 to28 are new entrants in the conspiracy, forgery, false creation of Thandaper No.3587and that due to the tremendous political influence of respondent No.26, the Gunmanin the Office of the Chief Minister of Kerala, the official respondents are not takingany action whatsoever. It is stated that not even a crime has been registered so farin spite of the very serious nature of the allegations and in spite of the evidence onrecord which conclusively proved the forgery, fabrication and falsification ofrecords indulged by respondents 6 to 28 and 32 for the purpose of knocking off45.50 acres of property in the survey numbers mentioned above which belongs toalmost 170 people including the 12.27 acres of land which stood in the name of thepetitioners.

25. The petitioners in W.P.(C).No.19462/2013 traced their title to the property asfollows: An extent of 12.27 acres of land in the above mentioned survey numberswas obtained by the petitioners as per registered Otti Transfer Deed No.2882/1969of SRO, Thiruvananthapuram and Certificate of Purchase issued in S.M.No.12/1980of Land Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram. The properties were mutated to the name ofthe petitioners and they are paying the land tax eversince 1980. Petitionersproduced copies of Certificate of Purchase, Otti Transfer Deed of 1969 and LandTax Receipts dated 21.5.2008 which are marked as Exts.P1 to P4 respectively.According to the petitioners, the land had originally belonged to the jenmies,M/s.Kuvakara Madom as per the settlement register which was maintained duringthe regime of Maharaja of Travancore. They had created tenancy in favour of thejoint family of one Kanakku Padmanabha Pillai and Kanakku Madhavan Nair by wayof Otti and Kuzhikkanam. Petitioners produced copy of relevant pages ofsettlement register as Ext.P5. Paragraph 6 of the writ petition narrates thedevolution of right in favour of the petitioners. Paragraph 6 reads as follows: "6. Asper Partition Deed No.2509/1101 ME, of Thiruvananthapuram SRO, the said lands,along with Otti liability, devolved upon Shri.Madhavan Nair. In the meanwhile, thejenmom rights in the property had been brought to sale in O.S.No.38/1120 on15.11.1950 and was purchased by Mr.Narayana Potti Shambhu Potti in court auction.On 7.8.1951, the sale was confirmed in his favour. Delivery of possession wasobtained through process of court on 19.8.1954. The said Madhavan Nair and hiswife transferred the tenancy rights over the said property to the name ofShri.Vasudevan Pillai and Vasu Pillai, nephews of Krishna Pillai, as per registeredOtti No.2313/1960, Thiruvananthapuram SRO. Later, the jenmom rights have been



purchased by Shri.K.P.Ramachandran Nair, father of the petitioners from the legalheirs of Narayana Potti Shambhu Potti as per registered sale deed No.2019/1968 ofThiruvananthapuram SRO. He paid the balance of mortgage amount as directed bythe Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram in O.S.No.94/68 and released the mortgage andpaid tax in his own name. Thereafter, the petitioners had purchased the otti rightsin the property from the aforesaid Vasudevan Pillai and Vasu Pillai, as per DocumentNo.2882/69 and later purchased the jenmom rights also as per proceedings inS.M.No.12/1980 dated 14.5.1980 and Certificate of Purchase dated 8.8.1980. Theyhad effected mutation of the properties to their own names also and paying taxthereon in T.P.No.10150". Out of 12.27 acres, the petitioners sold 4.38 acres withvarious third parties. A perusal of the encumbrance certificate received by themshows that the remaining 7.40 acres of land is mortgaged by the petitioners to theCanara Bank, Thiruvananthapuram. It is pleaded that to the utter shock and surpriseto the petitioners it is seen from the encumbrance certificate that in addition tothe various transactions entered into by the petitioners, some agreements wereseen registered in respect of Exts.P1 to P4 properties in favour of respondents 6 & 7fraudulently and without any authority, starting from 14.3.2012 onwards withrespondents 8 to 25 fraudulently claiming title to the property and purporting toexecute agreements for sale of the property to the name of respondents 6, 7 andothers. It is contended that respondents 8 to 25 have no title or ownership over thesubject properties and no possession also. The sale agreements have beenregistered by respondents 8 to 25 in favour of respondents 6 & 7 referring to apartition deed said to have been executed in the family of respondents 7 to 25 in2006 as partition deed No.2677/2006 of Karakulam SRO. The sale agreements havebeen executed with reference to the said partition deed and Thandaper No.3587 ofKadakampally Village. It is stated in the writ petition that the 15th respondent hadin collusion with the other party respondents created a sale deed in favour of onePraveen executed by his mother Fathima, and thereafter, arranged re-sale of theproperty having an extent of 1.47 acres in Sy.No.1270 and 15 cents in Sy.No.1282 ofKadakampally Village to his own name as per sale deed No.2617/2008 ofThiruvananthapuram SRO. It is contended that later, through fraud, he obtainedmutation of the property to his own name. Various complaints have been filedbefore the revenue authorities. The copy of the partition deed issued by the StatePublic Information Officer under the Right to Information Act reveals that page No.9is a fabrication and insertion, which is typed out in a different font and hasobviously been inserted in the document at a subsequent stage, which could havebeen only at the time of fabrication just prior to the submission before the revenueauthorities in connection with mutation of the properties. In the copy of thepartition deed obtained by the petitioners from the revenue authorities, it isnoticed that the 9th page is significantly different; that the font of the print isdifferent and Thandaper No.3587 is not seen included among the Thandaper numbersmentioned in the said document and the signatures at the bottom of the page arealso different, obviously, pointing to the fact that Ext.P7 partition deed producedalong with application of 15th respondent for mutation of properties is a fabricatedand forged one. The petitioners also produced copy of the partition deed obtainedunder the Right to Information Act as Ext.P8. It is seen that page No.9 in Exts.P7 &P8 are significantly different, clearly evidencing the fabrication which has been



carried out by the signatories therein for the purpose of applying for mutation ofthe properties by the 15th respondent. It is also complained that the entry ofThandaper No.3587 is obviously a fabrication and forgery in the name of deceasedAbdul Rehman Kunju, predecessor of respondents 8 to 25. It is contended that the32nd respondent has created false documents, false Thandaper number involving45.54 acres of prime land in collusion with respondents 6 to 28 and that a mereperusal of Ext.P9 Thandaper Register will clearly show the clandestine manner inwhich it has been prepared. It is also stated that the predecessors of respondents 8& 25 had in an identical fashion managed to revive and recreate a 'zero' Thandaperwith 1602 and to get included therein several acres of property comprised inSy.Nos.1203, 1204, 1240, 1241, 1270, 1409, 1279, 1290 and 1388 of KadakampallyVillage and created several false documents. Petitioners allege that Ext.P7 partitiondeed No.2677/2006 is a fraudulent document. It is registered at Karakulam SRO, faraway from Kadakampally and Thiruvananthapuram SRO. For the purpose ofregistration of the document at Karakulam SRO, one cent of land is added as an itemamong the 19.96 acres in Kadakampally Village. The Principal Secretary alsoreported that the said partition deed produced by the party respondents before theTahsildar for the purpose of mutation to their name is a clear forgery andfabrication. Ext.P9 is the copy of thandaper No.3587. The Revenue Secretaryreported that the original thandaper holder of 3587 was one Krishna Panicker andthe thandaper became blank only on 16.8.1984. Abdul Rehman Kunju passed away on20.1.1978, much earlier and obviously the present thandaper 3587 is said to be aforgery and fabrication, as a dead person could not have come back to submit anapplication for mutation. The Revenue Secretary also reported that there is noreference to any proceedings, as per which property was brought into thandaperNo.3587 from a parent thandaper. This is inevitable if the thandaper had beengenuine. The remarks column would show that thandaper is brought into existenceon the basis of a reference to a decree in O.S.No.85/1971. As I said earlier, the saidsuit itself had been withdrawn and as such there cannot be any decree directingcreation of new thandper. The role of involvement of outsiders and privateindividuals in creation of false thandaper No.3587 is also reported by the RevenueSecretary in paragraph 10 at page 37 of his report. In 2005, four documents wereseen executed at SRO, Varkala in respect of 5.50 acres of land in Sy.No.1285 & 1284of Kadakampally Village by respondents 9 to 15 to the names of their own familymembers, referring to a false thandaper No.1602. All the documents namely,document Nos.2833, 2834, 2835 and 2836 of 2005 are created on the same day inrespect of properties in Kadakampally Village in Varkala SRO instead ofThiruvananthapuram SRO. The Principal Secretary reported that thandaper No.1602was one which was pasted just after 1601 and that appears to be forged one and itneeds to be investigated by an appropriate agency. The learned counsel for thepetitioners in Kadakampally case contend that the transfer of registry to the nameof the 15th respondent is illegal, that thandaper No.3587 shows that it is a fake one,as the name holder did not have possession and as connected documents did nothave the said thandaper number and that Ext.P8 (Ext.P7) documents of 2677/2006and Ext.P7 partition deed is a fabricated one and liable to be cancelled and that allthese matters should be investigated by an appropriate agency to unravel thecommission of offences.



26. The foul play and manipulations alleged were brought to the notice of revenueauthorities by filing complaints. The matter was investigated by the Sub Collector,Thiruvananthapuram. He passed an order setting aside the mutation effected in fourcases and recommended disciplinary action against the Village Officer concernedand respondents 29 to 31. No action was initiated against respondents 8 to 25 or 29to 31 under criminal law. It is alleged that Thandaper No.1602 had been recreatedfalsely in the name of very same Abdul Rehman Kunju in whose name newThandaper No.3587 has been created through the same modus operandi, referringto the non- existent decree in O.S.No.85/1971 and a non-existent Thandaper.Petitioners have also submitted complaints before respondents 1 to 5. They aredeeply aggrieved as there has been no action taken even in spite of clear andcategoric findings in Ext.P11 and the obvious evidence available regarding thefraud, forgery and falsification of records with regard to Thandaper No.3587 ofKadakampally Village. The petitioners allege that the obvious and patent inactionon the part of the authorities is obviously due to the high position of the 26threspondent and his connections arising from having been the Gunman in the officeof the Chief Minister and consequential connections available to him which he isusing to delay and subvert the investigation in the cases.

27. Petitioners further contend that since the investigation required is very wide,complicated and on account of the high social and official status and the politicalinfluence and connection of the accused, an ordinary remedy by way of complaintsbefore the police or before the authorities will not suffice and will not serve anypurpose. The writ petition is filed highlighting the fabrication of false records,submission of knowingly false, fraudulent and malicious reports by respondents 29-32, at the instance of, and instigation of, respondents 6 to 28 with the 26threspondent misusing and abusing his official capacity and influence as Gunman in theoffice of the Chief Minister and the facilities available therein including telephone,for the purpose of causing officers in the subordinate level of Revenue Departmentto fabricate and forge documents and to raise a false claim to the valuable propertybelonging to the petitioners. It is submitted that though the petitioners submittedseveral complaints before the Deputy Collector (Vigilance), South Zone and beforerespondents 1 to 5 about serious offences committed under the provisions of thePrevention of Corruption Act and various provisions of Indian Penal Code, no actionwas ever taken by respondents 1 to 5 and the revenue authorities. Copies of variouscomplaints, reports and representations submitted before the police and revenueauthorities are produced in the writ petition.

28. The Deputy Collector, Vigilance, South Zone has conducted a detailed enquiryand prepared a report on 1.7.2013, a copy of which is marked as Ext.P22. In Ext.P22it is reported that the 'zero' Thandaper No.3587 had been written in the name ofAbdul Rehman Kunju in respect of 45.54 acres of land even without possession ortitle documents. The creation of the false Thandaper No.1602 and the cancellationthereof is also noticed in the report and as also the creation of a sale deed infavour of the 15th respondent, mutation of the properties to his name, withoutcompliance and in violation of the Transfer of Registry Rules in collusion with 32ndrespondent, the then Village Officer. Various leading newspapers and medias



reported the said facts; newspaper reports are marked as Exts.P24 to P30. Exts.P36to P44 are the newspaper reports in Edappally case.

29. It is submitted that the disputed property having an extent of 45.45 acres inKadakampally Village is worth at least Rs.250 Crores. The properties are situatedwithin the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation limits.

30. In Kadakampally case, belatedly, the revenue authorities have moved as perExts.P22 and P23 orders, but, no action was seen seen taken to investigate thecriminal offences committed by the party respondents and others or to initiatecriminal prosecution on account of the alleged illegal influence of the 26threspondent and the money power and influence of respondents 6 to 25. Complaintswere filed alleging serious crimes before the Circle Inspector of Police,Thiruvananthapuram dated 18.12.2012, before the Commissioner of Police dated 14.2.2013 & 10.4.2013 and before the Minister for Home dated 9.7.2013 and beforerespondents 1 to 4 on 9.7.2013. Even now, it is alleged that there is no responsefrom the authorities. Copies of the complaints are marked as Exts.P31 to P34.

31. Petitioners have furnished telephone numbers of respondents 6, 26 & 28 inparagraph 34 of W.P.(C). No.19462/2013. It is alleged that the telephone recordsand voice tapes of respondents 6 to 32 will reveal the collusive and conspiracybetween those respondents and the fraud and offences committed by them.

32. The 4th respondent, the Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, filed adetailed statement in Kadakampally case. Counter affidavits were also filed byrespondents 6 & 7, respondents 10, 13, 14 & 15, respondents 26 & 27, 28, 33, 35, 37& 38 in W.P.(C).No.19462/2013. The 36th respondent filed a statement.

33. In the statement filed by the 4th respondent it is inter alia stated that thePresident, Kadakampally Village Land Owners' Action Council filed a complaint dated23.2.2013 before the Government alleging very same criminal acts as mentioned inthe writ petition. The Government had initiated vigilance enquiry as per orderdated 23.5.2013 and the same is pending. It is also reported that more than 150families are residing in the land who claim title as per the documents held by themand that they have also paid land tax up to 20.12.2013. It is also stated that forwidening of Aamiyazhanchan Thodu, a portion of the above 45.50 acres of land wasacquired and compensation was given to the persons now in possession by the landacquisition authorities. It is stated that inclusion of land in dispute in ThandaperNo.3587 was obtained illegally. It is reported that the reasons for effecting mutationof 1.47 acres of land in the name of Ashraf (R15) also requires to be enquired intodetail. It is reported that the scope of vigilance enquiry is limited to theinvolvement of Government Officials into the alleged illegal acts alleged to havebeen done by them to help the persons claiming to have title over the property.

34. All the party respondents denied the allegation of commission of any offenceunder the IPC and PC Act. All of them contended that they have not fabricated anydocuments whatsoever and denied the claim of title of the petitioners. The



contesting party respondents claimed that they along with others are havingabsolute ownership rights over 45.54 acres of land comprised in various surveynumbers of Kadakampaly Village and that the present claims are cooked up forpolitical gains motivated at the behest of politicians for media coverage and cheappublicity. It is also stated that the allegations were part of civil dispute and thesame is pending in O.S.No.85/1971 before the Principal Sub Court,Thiruvananthapuram. It is stated that receiver appointed by the court in the civilsuit has already taken possession of the properties, that certain items of theproperties scheduled to the plaint has already taken possession by some of thesharers and the remaining properties are under the process of being taken over bythe receiver.

35. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 10, 13 & 14 it is stated that theallegations raised by the petitioners were investigated by Crime Records Bureau,Thiruvananthapuram as Crime No.47/2007 of Varkala Police Station. Copy of theFinal Report in Crime.No.47/2007 is produced as Ext.R10(e). In the Final Report it isstated that the disputed property is in the possession and enjoyment of thecomplainants and that they are remitting the tax. It is further reported that thegrievance of the complainants can be ventilated before the civil court. It is for thepetitioners to approach the civil court and establish their title over the properties.Stating that the allegations raised are of civil nature the Dy.S.P, Crime RecordsBureau submitted a refer report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,Varkala. The said complaint was filed by some other persons who claim title overthe properties in different survey numbers in Kadakampally Village. The facts statedare in respect of crime registered in 2007 and not about the present crime.

36. The 15th respondent is A.M.Ashraf. Respondents 19 to 25 are his sisters. He filedcounter on behalf of respondents 19 to 25 as well. In the counter they claimed titleto the disputed property of 45.54 acres of land. The learned counsel for respondents16 to 21 Sri.Vakkom Vijayan support the case of the 15th respondent.

37. In the counter affidavit filed by the General Manager, Vodafone, the additional36th respondent, it is inter alia stated that as per the licence condition thisrespondent needs to maintain records pertaining to call details and the likeexchanged on the net work for one year and same needs to be destroyed thereafterunless otherwise directed by Government of India (Clause 41.17 of the licenceconditions). It is stated that from the achieves they could retrieve and retain database for a period of 12 months preceding the intimation and communication of theorder. It is stated that all the call details and all the short message details withoutthe text message are maintained for the above period as prescribed by Governmentof India. There is no voice recording of the customers as it is not permitted by lawand due to technical non-feasibility as well. It is stated that in compliance ofSection 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act and the Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 asamended, the appropriate authorities specified therein can by order intercept ordetain or retrieve and enable voice recording through their own system. It is alsostated that the call particulars and message particulars without any text of themessage for the period of one year had been retained in compliance of the orders



of this Court and future call details and message details without text of themessage, shall also be retained until further orders from this Court.

38. In the counter affidavit filed by the 38th respondent, Divisional Engineer (LEA),Office of the Nodal Officer, BSNL, Ernakulam it is inter alia stated that the calldetails of BSNL customers as given in paragraph 34 of the writ petition are availableonly with effect from 1.11.2012 as on 6.11.2013 and have been preserved. In thecounter affidavit it is also marked the mobile numbers with address as per BSNLsystem records, the CDR of which have been preserved with effect from 1.11.2012.

39. The findings and observations in the report dated 15.11.2013 of the RevenueSecretary in W.P.(C).No.19462/2013 (Kadakampally case) is summarised as follows: Paragraph 7B at page 28 reported that "T.P.No.1602 has been created before theexecution of the documents on 29.6.2005". "T.P.No.1602 was one which was pastedjust after T.P.No.1601 with the remittance details of Thandaper No.1601 (AnnexureXVII) as observed from the office copy of the Land Tax Receipt (Annexure-XVIII). Inother words, T.P.No.1602 appears to be a forged one as rightly alleged by thepetitioner". "Copy of the partition deed No.2677/2006 submitted before theTahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram by the 15th respondent is a fabricated document(page 33)". "Unless and until otherwise proved, it can be observed beyond anydoubt that the forged document was submitted by A.M.Ashraf (15th respondent)himself and how and when he forged the same needs to be investigated byappropriate agency". "The suspected T.P.No.3587 in the name of Abdul RehmanKunju did not figure in any of the registered documents mentioned above, exceptthe forged one submitted by Ashraf along with his petition. This may also beinvestigated further by an appropriate agency to understand the mysteriouslinkages". "In the document No.1003/2012 dated 9.3.2012 (Annexure- XXVI) the selleris Smt.Suhra Beevi and buyers are C.K.Jayaram and K.H.Abdul Majeed, who arerespondents 6 & 7 respectively. In this document T.P.No.3587 is mentioned. Therecitals in the documents reveals that the buyers were only the land brokers whowould help Suhra Beevi to alienate 11.75 acres of land in item No.I; 45.00 cents initem No.II, 2.00 acres in item number III and 15.00 cents in item number IV. It isfound that the said document is defective and how such a document got registeredat the Principal SRO, Thiruvananthapuram as per Registration Act, 1908 warrantsfurther investigation". Paragraph 10 at page 37 reads as follows: (page 35-36) "a.There has been consistent effort from respondent No.15, Sri.A.M.Ashraf and otherssince 2008 to mislead revenue authorities by presenting documents which were notvalid. b. It is noticed that, over the period the Revenue officials and theRegistration officials have crated false Thandaper No.3587 and deeds in the name ofSri.Abdul Rahman Kunju. c. The fabrication was in favour of a deceased person maybe to avert action from authorities if caught red handed. d. It is also seen in theVillage records that, the hand writing in the records do not tally with thehandwriting of the then Revenue officials present. The then Village Man, Mr.Sujanhas orally mentioned that "one private individual, Mr.Harikumar, S/o.Subbaiya Pillaiwas a regular visitor to the Village Office who had access to Village records". Thiswas confirmed by one Mr.Satish Kumar who was a clerk at the office of revenueDivision Officer, Thiruvananthapuram during the period. This may also be further



investigated by an appropriate agency." On a perusal of the whole issue thefollowing things can be noticed: "A. the Thandaper No.3587 is seen created after2008 as it was lying blank (Soonya Thandaper) since 1984. B. Original Thandaperholder of 3587 was Sri.Krishnapanicker, S/o.Issakki Chami Panicker ofThoppuvilakathu Veedu, Kannamoola, which became blank on 16.8.1984 pursuant toPV 10056/84. C. Before 3587 was assigned to the above person, it was in the nameof Sri.Sankaran Madhavan of Karikkakam. D. At least for the last 72 years, ThandaperNo.3587 was not in the name of current Thandaper holder (suspicious) Sri.AbdulRahman Kunju." Page 42-43 under the head findings and observations the followingfindings are recorded. "T.P.No.1602 is fabricated and should be cancelled. FromT.P.No.1602, other T.P.Nos.34722, 34846, 34847, 34848 were created which weresubsequently cancelled by the Sub Collector, Thiruvananthapuram by order dated27.6.2009. T.P.No.3587 is fabricated and should be cancelled. T.P.No.3587 is seencreated after 2006 in the name of the person who demised in 1979. The officialsfrom the Village Office, Kadakampally have created this Thandaper surely inconnivance with the outsiders. This aspect needs to be enquired in detail by anappropriate investigating agency. However, the above Thandaper Number can becancelled straightway by the RDO, Thiruvananthapuram, since there are noclaimants for this Thandaper Number. At least for the last 72 years, Thandaper No.3587 was not in the name of current Thandaper holder Sri.Abdul Rehman Kunju. Thelands which are currently included in Thandaper No. 3587 was never in possession ofeither Abdul Rehman Kunju or his legal heirs. The lands which are currently includedin Thandaper No.3587 was never in possession of the Advocate Receiver,Sri.P.K.Thomas, who was appointed as per the direction in O.s.No.85/1971. Thecreation of Thandaper bearing No.3587 is not as per Rules contemplated in Rule 3(b)(i) and 14(1) of the Transfer of Registry Rules. But Thandaper No.44954 which iscreated from 3587 is illegal and the action of the then Village OfficerSri.P.M.Subramanian Pillai is against Rules. Page No.9 of the document submitted bythe 15th respondent before the Tahsildar is a fabricated one. It is different in SubRegistrar office copy and the copy submitted before the Tahsildar,Thiruvananthapuram for effecting Transfer of Registry. Copy submitted before theTahsildar is by 15th respondent Ashraf. He alone can be held responsible forfabricating page No.9 of the document unless and until proved otherwise.Cancellation of documents, if any, can be done only through a competent civilcourt. This aspect should also be investigated by an appropriate investigatingagency".

40. On the basis of the news item appeared on 8.5.2013 and continuously thereafterthat there was an attempt to grab 45.50 acres by creating false documents,Government had ordered vigilance enquiry. The Department after due enquiryfound more or less the same facts and recorded findings similar to the reportsubmitted by the Revenue Secretary in W.P.(C). No.19462/2013.

41. The Secretary, Revenue, Government of Kerala, in both comprehensive enquiryreports in the two writ petitions entered clear and unambiguous findings in a fairand objective manner. The Secretary examined the allegations raised by thepetitioners and respondents, perused the revenue records, other documents and



depositions of officials and others. The reports established the fact that therevenue records maintained in both villages were fabricated, new Thandaperrecords were created by the revenue officials fraudulently in conspiracy with someof the respondents and others leading to social chaos. It is reported that thecircumstances leading to the mischiefs, the persons involved behind the fabricationand the involvement of revenue officials can be known by a deeper investigation byan appropriate agency. 42. The extent of property involved in Kadakampally Villageis 45.54 acres and in Edappally North Village is 1.16 acres of land (actual extent afterre-survey is identified as 99 cents). The reduction in the extent is disputed and isthe subject matter of complaint pending before the revenue authorities. Theenquiry report reveals about the manipulations, creation of false Thandaper, forgeryand falsification of records in collusion with the party respondents. Both propertiesare lying within the Corporation limits of Thiruvananthapuram and Cochin. On amoderate estimate, it is averred that the properties are worth more than 250Crores and 25 Crores respectively. 150 persons are in possession of the disputedextent of 45.54 acres in Kadakampally Village including the petitioners. They areclaiming title by virtue of different title deeds and they are paying land tax. Aportion of the said properties was acquired by the Government. The present landowners claimed compensation and compensation was granted to them. There wasno claim by the contesting respondents or by the receiver appointed in the suitO.S.No.85/1971. The Revenue Secretary also reported that the lands included inThandaper No.3587 was never been in the possession of the Advocate ReceiverSri.P.K.Thomas. He was appointed as receiver in O.S.No.85/1971. Ext.P41 is thetrue copy of the relevant pages of Kerala Gazette dated 27.5.1980 which is anotification issued under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act pertainingto the acquisition of properties in Sy.Nos.1270, 1271, 1273 and 1274 and othersurvey numbers which form part of 45.54 acres. Ext.P42 is the sale deed executedon 9.5.1983 by the petitioners in favour of George Kutty Thomas. Ext.P43 is thecopy of the letter dated 29.5.2010 issued by the Special Tahsildar (LA),Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P44 is the copy of the judgment dated 5.2.1998 inL.A.R.No.110/1990 of the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Theclaimants are found to be the actual owners of the property in possession of theacquired land including the assignees from the petitioners. No person claimed title,possession or compensation under Abdul Rehman Kunju. The acquisition wasinitiated against the owners who are the persons in the possession of theproperties. Ext.P45 is the notice under Section 9(3) issued in L.A.C.No.116/1980and Ext.P46 is the award dated 23.2.1981 in L.A.C.No.116/80. Ext.P47 and P48 arealso relating to the same acquisition. None of the respondents nor the receiverhave submitted any claim or objection in the land acquisition proceedings or soughtto claim compensation. The acquired land now vested with the Governmentconsequent to acquisition having an extent of 1.5 acres in the disputed surveynumbers is also included in the fraudulent Thandaper No.3587 alleged to have beencreated by respondents 6 to 32 through fraud and collusion.

43. It is alleged by the petitioners that the 15th respondent in Kadakampally case incollusion with the other party respondents have created a sale deed in favour ofone Praveen and arranged for re-assignment of the said land having an extent of



1.47 acres in Sy.No.1270 and 15 cents in Sy.No.1282 of Kadakampally Village to hisown name as per sale deed No.2617/2008 of Thiruvananthapuram SRO. He obtainedmutation of this property to his name. In the said context, the petitioners appliedfor copy of the partition deed No.2677/2006 dated 19.8.2006. In page No.9 of thesaid document Thandaper Number is inserted in the 3rd line from the bottom. Fromthe reports it is seen that page No.9 is a fabrication and insertion which is typedout in a different font and has obviously been inserted in the document at asubsequent stage which could have been only at the time of fabrication just prior tothe submission of documents before the revenue authorities in connection withmutation. Ext.P7 is the copy of the partition deed No.2677/2006 dated 19.8.2006issued from the Taluk Office by the State Public Information Officer under the Rightto Information Act. Petitioners obtained another copy of the partition deed. Thesaid copy is marked as Ext.P8. Page No.9 in Ext.P8 is significantly different, in thatthe font of the print is different and Thandaper No.3587 is not seen included amongthe Thandaper numbers mentioned in the said document and the signatures at thebottom of the page are also different, pointing out to the fact that earlierdocument produced along with application of 15th respondent for mutation ofproperties was a fabricated and forged one. Ext.P9 is the copy of the statement ofthe Additional Tahsildar in W.P.(C).No.8720/2012 and copy of the Thandaperregister of T.P.No.3587. The Thandaper register shows that T.P.No.3587 was a '0'Thandaper. There was no land left in the said Thandaper which has been recreatedsubsequently. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government in W.P.(C).No.8720/2012, filed by the mother of the 15th respondent, it is stated that thepetitioner therein did not have possession or title to the properties and that no landinvolved in the decree of O.S.No.85/1971 stand in the name of the plaintiff inKadakampally case as per Village records and that the properties were not in herpossession. It was also stated that the petitioner therein is not the land holder ofthe plaint schedule property. Ext.P15 is the copy of the counter affidavit.

44. Learned counsel for the 15th respondent Sri.Balagovindan contended that theproperty having an extent of 45.54 acres originally belonged to one Subramanya Rueof Koovakkara Madom, that he received consideration of Rs.2,51,967/- from KochuPillai Moosa, that Subramanya Rue executed a document as OttiKuzhikkannam infavour of Kochu Pillai Moosa mortgaging the entire extent. Kochu Pilla Moosa is thegreat grandfather of the mother of the 15th respondent. It is submitted that thedocument of 1097, marked as Ext.R15(b), being an OttiKuzhikkannam deed asdefined under the Land Reforms Act, his predecessors became the cultivatingtenants since the properties were in the possession of receiver with effect from28.5.1969. According to him, at the time of commencement of Land Reforms Act,the properties were under custodia legis and that the claim of the petitioners inrespect of the properties mentioned in Ext.R15(b) is therefore misconceived.Similar contentions were raised by respondents 10, 13 and 14. It is also pointed outthat in the Pauper Suit No.13/1960, later numbered as O.S.No.67/1961 on the file ofthe Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram and subsequently transferred to the DistrictCourt and re-numbered as O.S.No.4/1965, a decree was passed. A copy of thedecree is marked as Ext.R15(d). It is contended that the entire mortgage along withKuzhikkanam right got transferred to the predecessor of the 15th respondent.



O.S.No.4/1965 was filed in the year 1960 for partition as a Pauper Suit.Subsequently, another suit for partition was also filed between the members of thefamily of the contesting respondents before the Sub Court, Attingal asO.S.No.14/1969. In the said suit a receiver was appointed for plaint 'A' and 'B'schedule items. Properties in dispute are also scheduled in the suit claiming title byvirtue of Ottikuzhikkanam deed of 1097. It is submitted that on the basis of theorder of the Sub Court in O.S.No.14/1969 Adv.Sri.T.M.Mohammed Shafi wasappointed as the receiver-cum-commissioner. Later the present receiverSri.P.K.Thomas assumed charge.

45. Ext.R15(b) is the copy of the document executed by Subramanian Rue in favourof Kochu Pilla Moosa in the year 1097. The judgment in A.S.No.82/1973 on the fileof this Court arising from the judgment in O.S.No.85/1971 on the file of thePrincipal Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram is produced and marked as Ext.P10. On averification of Ext.P10 judgment it is seen that the said suit has been withdrawn asper the judgment dated 20.2.1980 in A.S.No.82/1973. Therefore, it is evident thatno decree exists in O.S.No.85/1971. O.S.No.85/1971 was a suit for partition.O.S.No.4/1965 was filed by one of the members of the tharavad, who is the 12thdefendant in O.S.No.14/1969. It is stated that O.S.No.85/1971 was compromised outof court due to the influence of the karanavar and that the suit was withdrawn bythe other members of the tharavad. The petition for appointment of receiver inO.S.No.14/1969 (O.S.No.85/1971) was allowed and a receiver was appointed forthe schedule items which are not in the possession of any of the parties to the suit.There was no occasion for the receiver appointed in O.S.No.85/1971 to takepossession of the present disputed property. The contesting respondents failed toproduce the so called report of the receiver taking possession of the property. Inthe facts and circumstances of the case, since the properties are in the possessionof mortgagees, it may not be possible for the receiver to take possession of 45.50acres. The mortgagees or their successors are not parties to both suits. The orderpassed by the Sub Court, Attingal dated 28.7.1969 in I.A.No.1094/1969 inO.S.No.14/1969 is produced and marked as Ext.R15(j). Copy of the judgment dated31.7.1972 in O.S.No.85/1971 on the file of the Principal Sub Court,Thiruvananthapuram is produced and marked as Ext.R10(b). In O.S.No.85/1971 onthe file of the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram as many as five items of propertieswere scheduled. The suit namely, O.S.No.4/1965 of District Court,Thiruvananthapuram (originally filed as Pauper Suit No.13/1960) was also dismissedas withdrawn. Thus, the two suits filed by the members of the family for partitiondid not end in adjudication of their claim and both suits were withdrawn. 15threspondent and other party respondents who are the family members claimed rightby virtue of Ext.R15(b) document of 1097. The learned counsel for the 15threspondent Sri.Balagovindan argued at length in support of his contention that theirpredecessor Kochu Pilla Moosa acquired mortgage right over 45.54 acres. 45(a). Ihave read Ext.R15(b) document carefully. On the date of execution of Ext.R15(b)OttiKuzhikkannam it is seen that the jenmi has no possession over the disputedproperty. The property was outstanding with two mortgagees. At the time ofexecution of Ext.R15(b), the period of mortgage was not over. Jenmi of theproperty received certain amounts from Kochu Pilla Moosa. It is agreed by both



sides that after the expiry of the period of mortgage, the jenmi shall redeem themortgage from the mortgagees and further agreed to put Kochu Pilla Moosa inpossession of the properties. The properties were outstanding on mortgage withKanakku Padmanabha Pillai and Easwari Narayana Pillai. Though Ext.R15(b)document was executed, the properties remained in possession of mortgagees.Since the jenmi was not in possession of the properties in dispute there was nooccasion for the jenmi to transfer possession of the property to Kochu Pilla Moosa.Either the jenmi or Kochu Pilla Moosa or predecessors had taken any measures toredeem the property from the mortgagees. The mortgagees continued theirpossession and enjoyment after the expiry of the term of mortgage. The two suitsreferred earlier were filed for partition between the members of the family. In thesuits the disputed property is also included as items claiming that the familymembers of Kochu Pilla Moosa has got absolute title over the property. There wasno adjudication in the suit and both suits were dismissed as withdrawn. There wasno prayer for redemption in both suits. It is not known for what purpose theproperties in the possession of mortgagees were also included in the suit forpartition and separate possession. Till this point of time the predecessors-in-interestof Kochu Pilla Moosa had filed any suit against the mortgagees or their successors.Since the properties never came into the hands of Kochu Pilla Moosa or hispredecessors at any point of time, they cannot contend that they are cultivatingtenants entitled to assignment. Possession of the property was outstanding on themortgagees and the mortgagees continue to possess and enjoy the properties. Ihave perused Ext.R15(b) document of 1097. It is styled as an otti kuzhikkanam. Noneof the mortgage holders are parties to the document. Properties remainedoutstanding in the name of the original mortgagees. The original of the documentwill show that it enumerates the innumerable debts, liabilities and mortgagescreated by members of Koovakara Madom and then, after stating that such amountsare retained with Moosa Haji to be paid to the executant as and when he asks forthe same for clearing off the said liabilities, the deed evidenced payment of onlyan amount of ₹ 27,366/- panams out of the total amount of ₹ 2,51,967/- and <panam, which is the sum total of the liabilities enumerated in the said documentand the above said payment of ₹ 27,366/- panams alone is recorded as received bythe executant of the document. The contesting respondents have no case that thedocument of 1097 is a document of superior mortgage. It is not disclosed as towhether the jenmi of document No.1899/1097 had ever taken any steps to redeemthe mortgage from the predecessors of the petitioners or he had ever gotpossession of the same so as to handover the same to Moosa Haji or Abdul RehmanKunju. In these circumstances, the contention raised by the contesting respondentsincluding the 15th respondent that they are the title holders of the property byvirtue of Ext.R15(b) document of 1097 appears to be untenable.

46. As regards Edappally Village, besides six buildings there is a three storiedbuilding in the property. Respondents 8 & 11 submitted objections before the 2ndrespondent based on a report submitted by respondents 14 & 15. The saidrespondents raised a contention that Thandaper No.8826 did not belong to thepetitioners' family and it stood in the name of Vallon Mani. Ext.P14 is the copy ofthe letter and extract of Thandaper register issued by the 14th respondent. It is



submitted by the petitioners that on the basis of Ext.P14, the 16th respondentdeliberately and falsely reported that the claim of the petitioner in ThandaperNo.8826 was false and tax for the year 1969 and 1971 had been received wrongly. Itis alleged that respondents 14 & 15 fraudulently reported that old village recordsand re- survey records do not tally and 16th respondent at the instance of the partyrespondents 8 to 13 accepted the same ignoring all documents produced by thepetitioners. Ext.P1 is the copy of the sale deed No.1186/1957 of Edappally SRO.Ext.P15 is the copy of the report dated 12.12.201 issued by the 16th respondent andExt.P16 and P17 are the tax receipts produced by the 2nd petitioner before the16th respondent. Taking note of all these facts the 2nd respondent, the LandRevenue Commissioner, in the first instance, has issued a letter to the parties thatsince so many court proceedings are pending the Revenue Department cannot takeany further action in the matter. Copy of the said letter is marked as Ext.P18. The11th respondent being not satisfied, again filed Ext.P19 representation before theMinister for Revenue. It is alleged that through the agency of the 18th respondentcaused Ext.P18 proceedings to be reviewed and reopened, a power which is absentin the 2nd respondent. It is alleged by the petitioners that on account of the illegalmanipulations by respondents 8, 11 & 18 to 20 and the influence exerted by them atthe Government level, the proceedings were reopened by the 2nd respondentimmediately. Copy of the letter dated 18.4.2012 issued from the office of the LandRevenue Commissioner is marked as Ext.P20. Ext.P20 letter was issued to the 3rdrespondent with a questionnaire. It is alleged in the writ petition that thequestionnaire was couched in carefully planned language with an intention to get apositive report on some points alone favourable to respondents 8 to 13 and 18 to 20.It is also averred that in the meanwhile respondents 14 & 15 have created anotherreport dated 21.1.2012 suggesting that the lands had been recorded in the name ofthe petitioners for the first time only after resurvey as per Thandaper No.2127. 17threspondent, the Additional Tahsildar repeated the allegations made in the earlierreport submitted by respondents 14 & 15 and forwarded the same to the 3rdrespondent District Collector. The said report is marked as Ext.P24. It is alleged thatthe District Collector simply copied the same and submitted the same as his reportbefore the Land Revenue Commissioner. Ext.P25 is the copy of the letter dated16.7.2012 submitted by the District Collector to the Land Revenue Commissioner.The District Collector did not conduct any hearing or enquiry. He forwarded Ext.P25letter to the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent Land Revenue Commissionerwithout notice to the petitioners straight away accepted the report forwarded bythe 17th respondent. The report stating that the land was vested in the Governmentunder Section 72 of the Land Reforms Act was accepted straight away bycancellation of Thandaper standing in the name of the petitioners. Ext.P26 is thecopy of the order dated 4.9.2012 issued by the 2nd respondent. In Ext.P26, the 2nd respondent also ordered cancellation of all the Thandaper numbers and furtherdirected the District Collector to submit a report after cancelling the Thandapernumber of the petitioners. The order issued by the 2nd respondent namely, Ext.P26is under challenge in W.P.(C).No.23144/2012 and is pending.

47. Serious allegations are raised against the party respondents. According to thepetitioners, respondents 13 & 14 in the place of the original Thandaper standing in



the name of the 1st petitioner since 1960 falsely incorporated a new Thandaperprepared in the name of Vallon Mani even without his knowledge or application andthus falsified and fabricated false records at the instance of respondents 8 to 13 and18 to 20. It is alleged that the official respondents 14 to 17 also collided with theparty respondents, through such abuse and misuse of their official position, thatthey have demanded and taken huge amounts as bribe from respondents 8 to 13 and18 to 20 and also on account of the undue influence exerted by Salim Raj, the ex-gunman of the Chief Minister created false records to make it appear that theproperties that had belonged to the petitioners family in their absolute possessionfor the past 86 years, were vested in Government to knock off the said propertythrough fraudulent manipulations. Petitioners in Kadakampally Village raised similarallegations that respondents 8 to 25 in collusion with respondents 29 to 31 andothers had created false Thandaper for 45.54 acres of land in Kadakampally Villagefabricating and falsifying the original documents to create a false title byincorporating a false Thandaper No.3587 in the records of Kadakampally Village andcommitted forgery. 47(a). In Edappally case, the learned counsel for the petitionerspointed out that Exts.P3 & P4 are the copies of the basic tax receipts in the nameof the 1st petitioner & 2nd petitioner respectively and Exts.P5 & P6 are the copiesof the basic tax receipts in the name of the 4th petitioner and 2nd petitionerrespectively. The learned counsel Sri.Dinesh R. Shenoy contends that the fact thatThandper No.8826 was in existence even earlier is evident from Exts.P2(3) & (4)which show that portions of properties from Thandaper No.8826 were transferredto Thandaper No.9097 and 9007 as early as in 1983. It is also pointed out that KaderPillai, the Thandaper holder of 8826 expired only in 1996, such that ThandaperNo.8826 was not a zero Thandaper in 1990, when Ext.P50 is purported to have beencreated in the name of Mani, pointing to the obvious fraud and forgery in thismatter and the fact that the original Thandaper No.8826 was destroyed for creatingExt.P20. Ext.P20 is the copy of the letter No.LRB8-34440/11 dated 18.4.2012 andExt.P50 is the copy of the Thandaper No.8826 of Thrikkakkara North Village. Thelearned counsel also submits that the contention that the properties inSy.No.651/8A, 8B & 8C were the properties belonging to Elangalloor Swaroopam iswithout any basis. It is submitted that all the properties of Elangalloor Swaroopamin Thrikkakkara North Village are recorded in Thandaper No.7 of Thrikkakara NorthVillage and the said thandaper never contained Sy.No.651/8A, 8B & 8C. Petitionersalso produced copy of the reply letter dated 6.3.2013 together with copy ofThandper No.7 received from the Village Office, Thrikkakara as Ext.P52. Petitionersproduced copy of the settlement register of Thrikkakara North Village as Ext.P53. Ext.P53 would show that properties in Sy.No.651/8A, 8B & 8C are never included inThandaper No.7. It is contended that Exts.P35 & P53 shows that the said propertiesnever belonged to Elangalloor Swaroopam. Ext.P35 is the certified extract of thesettlement register of Thrikkakara Pakuty issued from the Central Archives,Thiruvananthapuram. It is further submitted that in fact the reply issued by theVillage Officer will show that the decision to say that the petitioners' father did nothave title to the property was taken on the basis of some entry in two documentsof title and an encumbrance certificate dated 1.12.2010 and not on the basis of anyvillage records and without reference to the settlement register which had beenpresented before the Village Officer. According to the learned counsel it is clearly



points to the dubious methods adopted by the contesting respondents. Copy of thesaid reply dated 15.11.2012 is marked as Ext.P54. It is also pointed out that in thesettlement register the inam of the two items of properties is pandaravaka pattamand third item is Cheranelloor swaroopam and in respect of Sy.No.651/8A and 8Cthe pattadar shown is the owner. The learned counsel also placed reliance onExt.P22 document (Ext.R8(a)). Placing reliance on the copy of the patta chitNo.2909/1102 ME of SRO, Alangad produced as Ext.R8(2), the learned counsel forthe petitioners pointed out that Ext.R8(2) is in respect of 16 acres of land and thatthe said items are different and distinct properties from the properties in dispute.It is also pointed out in the settlement register the extent of property shown is 2.32cents whereas the properties in dispute is 116 cents. The learned counsel alsoplaced reliance on Ext.P62 decree obtained by Elangalloor Swaroopam inO.S.No.697/1959 filed for arrears of pattam. The suit was dismissed against the 10thdefendant Muhammed. It is also submitted that the property in dispute is notscheduled in O.S.No.697/1959. In the said circumstances, it is contended that theSwaroopam cannot turn around and contend that they are the title holders of theproperties. The learned counsel also pointed out that the ultimate aim of theaforesaid manipulation, fabrication and destruction of official records were anattempt to enable the respondents 8 to 13 to fraudulently knock off the valuable properties belonging to the petitioners having an extent of 1.16 acres andcontaining five buildings worth well over ₹ 25 crores. It has been expressly pleadedin the two reply affidavits filed by the petitioners that the present "investigation"by the State is totally dis-satisfactory and the force intended only to help the actualculprits including respondents 2 and 8 to 20 and their conspirators to escapeliability. Petitioners expressly stated in paragraph 20 of the writ petition that theydid not seek to raise the issue as to the title to the properties or to suchadjudication or canvass any relief in respect of title dispute in the present writpetition. The writ petition is only filed in respect of the alleged criminal offencescommitted by respondents. 47(b). The learned counsel also placed attention to thesettlement register Ext.P35 which would show that Sy.No.651/8A & 8B is standing inthe name of Kesava Sambla and Narayana Sambla as pattadar holder of patta No.392and 8C as pandaravaka pattom, pandaravaka Sree Pandarakaryam Cheyvar. Thecounsel also pointed out that Ext.P52 produced along with reply affidavit which is athandaper account of Elangalloor Swaroopam No.7 contains no reference toSy.No.651/8A, 8B or 8C. It is submitted that ethirpattacheettu No.2909/1102 MEproduced by respondents 8 to 13 as Ext.R8 (12) contains five items of properties andthat the properties mentioned in item No.I is different from item No.6 in sale deedNo.1064/1102 ME. There is difference in kara, name and boundaries. The counselalso contend that in the decree in O.S.No.697/1959 of Munsiff Court, Ernakulamfiled by Elangalloor Swaroopam against Muhammed and others for arrears of pattom,Sy.Nos.651/8A, 8B & 8C were not included in the schedule. It is submitted that ifthe disputed property belongs to Swaroopam, no doubt, it would have beenincluded. Ext.P62 shows that the suit against Muhammed was dismissed. It is alsopointed out that O.S.No.513/1964 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam filedby Muhammed Kavungapadath, son of another wife of Kunjan Marakkar claimingpartition of the disputed property evidences undisputed possession and title ofpetitioners' predecessors. It is also contended that in the sale deed No.2906/1966



executed by 27th respondent in favour of Illikkal Hassan, who is predecessor ofrespondents 8 to 13 purporting to assign jenmom rights in the disputed surveynumbers, it is pointed out that Swaroopam thandaper did not even contain thisproperty. It is further contended that even at the time of execution of sale deedNo.1988/1967 in favour of Illikkal Hassan, the properties stand in the name of KadirPillai and Shereefa and not in the name of Elangalloor Swaroopam as evident fromExts.P2 and P74 and further shows that the aforesaid two sale deed are the result ofthe fraud practiced by the predecessors of respondents 8 to 13. It is also pointedout that if the sale deeds are genuine they may have been with respect to theremaining portion of the properties in same survey numbers. The total extent in theSy.Nos.651/8A, 8B & 8C is having 232 cents and the petitioners are claiming titleonly in respect of 116 cents. The counsel submitted that Ext.P12 report submittedby the Village Officer, Thrikkakara North Village to the effect that the propertiesstood in the name of Elangalloor Swaroopam, that no pattayam had been obtainedby the petitioners and there was a mistake in the thandaper that old thandaperNo.8826 stood in the name of Vallon Mani, that Tax had been wrongly received in1969 & 1971 etc. is a false report and the same was prepared behind the back ofthe petitioners without notice to them and without even verifying the originaldocuments. It is also pointed out that the report was prepared in the handwriting ofthe 15th respondent and was signed by the 14th respondent, which are marked asExts.P71 & P73. In the circumstance, it is said that both 14th and 15th respondentsare equally culpable. Respondents 14 & 15 submitted another report in tune withExt.P12 report with reference to an encumbrance certificate, without hearing thepetitioners and without verifying the original documents. It is not disputed by anyof the parties that the 19th respondent, wife of 18th respondent gunman, obtaineda request transfer to the office of the 2nd respondent on 17.2.2013. The counselsubmits that on 18.4.2012 a carefully crafted questionnaire as desired by thedraftsman is forwarded to the District Collector from the office of the LandRevenue Commissioner (Ext.P20). It is alleged that the questionnaire was crafted insuch a way that only answers favourable to 11th respondent could be sent back andthe scope of enquiry is limited within the parameters of those questions alone. Thecounsel for the petitioners Sri.Shenoy also pointed out that 17th respondent wasaware that the thandaper in the number is created newly in 1990 long afterthandaper No.8826 had become a '0' thandaper in 1982 after the death of KadirPillai and partition deed No.362/82, that the property is not part of thandaper No.7standing in the name of Swaroopam and that there is nothing to even suspect thattax was received wrongly from the petitioners in 1969 and 71. It is also pointed outthat on the basis of the report of the Additional Tahsildar on 16.7.2012 the LandRevenue Commissioner, without hearing, straightaway ordered that all thethandaper numbers standing in the name of the petitioners should be cancelled andto submit report to him (Ext.P26). Report of the Principal Revenue Secretary revealthe manipulations made in the office of the Land Revenue Commissioner to issuesuch orders. 47(c). In Kadakampally case, petitioners produced additional documentswith a petition to receive the documents on 25.2.2014. The said petition isI.A.No.3070/2014. The additional documents produced are Exts.P55 to P60. Ext.P55is the copy of the petition dated 5.6.2008 in I.A.No.2739/2008 in O.S.No.4/1965filed before the II Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Petitioners are



defendants 55, 56, 66, 61, 63, 64 and 65. Direction was sought for to the counterpetitioner/receiver Sri.T.K.Thomas to hand over possession of the petition A, B & Cschedule properties to the petitioners therein. Ext.P56 is the objection filed by thereceiver. In Ext.P56 objection it is categorically stated by the receiver that theproperties of the petitioners are not seen taken possession by him as per any of theavailable orders with him. Ext.P57 is the order dated 10.7.2008 in the same I.A. It isstated in the order that the advocate receiver is not certain whether he has takenpossession of the properties. The receiver himself filed Ext.P56 objection statingthat petition A, B & C schedule properties are not taken possession. In spite of thatcourt passed Ext.P57 oder directing to hand over possession of petition A, B & Cschedule properties to the petitioner forthwith since the properties inO.S.No.85/1971 and O.S.No.4/1965 are one and the same. Petitioners also producedExt.P58, copy of the application dated 11.8.2008 filed before the receiver. Ext.P58application was filed by one of the defendants who is the 33rd respondent hereinbefore the receiver. In Ext.P58 application at page 9 many items of propertiesincluding petition A, B & C schedule properties are shown. Ext.P59 is the copy ofthe report dated 2.1.2009 submitted by the advocate receiver. The receiversubmitted the report stating that he hereby handover possession of properties afterobtaining kychit from him. Ext.P60 is the copy of the kychit showing that AbdulRehman Kunju Nazimuddin 33rd respondent received possession of 45.20 Acres inthe suit. The dispute is between defendants and respondents 8 to 21 herein. Thelearned counsel submits that at that point of time the properties were in thepossession of third parties. At no point of time notice was issued to them. Now the33rd respondent claims title to the property which includes the acquired landbelonging to the Government and the Aamiyazhanchan thodu. From the aforesaidfacts, it is clear that the court passed order directing the receiver to handoverproperties over which he says he has no possession that too having an extent ofmore than 45.20 acres and thereafter the very same receiver files an obviously falsereport stating that he has hereby handed over the said properties of 45.20 acres ofland after receiving kychit from him. It is submitted that the 33rd respondent filesan absolutely false kychit claiming falsely that he has obtained surrender of and istaking possession of said 45.20 acres of land. According to the counsel, Exts.P55 toP60 documents prove that all the stories of custodia legis, possession of thereceiver, delivery by the receiver etc. are all false, fraudulent and totally malafide.There is much substance in the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners.

48. Several complaints were lodged by the petitioners in both writ petitions. It isstated that on account of the tremendous influence, political interference andmisuse of money power at the instance of the 18th respondent, others and theposition of the 19th respondent (in W.P.(C).No.19431/2013) in the RevenueDepartment, such complaints were unattended. Complaints have been repeatedlyfiled seeking investigation of the criminal acts of collusion, fraud, fabrication ofrecords and conspiracy of party respondents in both cases and misuse of power ofofficials including the office of the Chief Minister. Ext.P28 is the complaint dated13.6.2013 in Edappally case filed before the Home Minister. Exts.P29 is thecomplaint dated 21.6.2013 submitted before the Minister for Home. Identicalcomplaints were filed before respondents 1 to 7 also. Complaint dated 21.6.2013



filed before the Chief Minister is marked as Ext.P30. It is stated that complaintshave been filed before the Director General of Police also. Similar complaints werefiled by the petitioners in Kadakampally case before the police authorities andrevenue authorities. It is alleged that no action was taken to investigate thecriminal offences committed by the party respondents or to initiate criminalprosecution, on account of the illegal influence of the 26th respondent and themoney power and influence of respondents 6 to 25 in W.P.(C).No.19462/2013. On14.2.2013 complaints have been filed before the Commissioner of Police. On7.7.2013 complaints have been filed before respondents 1 to 4. The complaintdated 18.12.2012 lodged before the Circle Inspector of Police is marked as Ext.P31.Ext.P32 is the copy of the complaint dated 14.2.2013 filed before the Commissionerof Police, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.P33 is the copy of the complaint dated10.4.2013. The complaint dated 9.7.2013 filed before the Minister for Home ismarked as Ext.P34. It is said that identical complaints are filed before respondents 1to 4 on the same date of lodging Ext.P34 complaint.

49. Respondents 6 & 7 in W.P.(C).No.19462/2013 (Kadakampally case) entered intofive registered agreements purporting to purchase 12.25 acres of land fromMuhammed Fathima, 8th respondent Nizar Ahammed, 9th respondent Salma Beevi,17th respondent Chandrakumar, eight children of Muhammed Fathima and othersand the price fixed is 13,37,00,000/-. The advance paid is Rs.11 Lakhs. Theproperties are portions of 45.50 acres standing in Thandaper Nos.3587 and othernumbers. Admittedly, the 6th respondent C.K.Jayaram, a real estate agent, andK.H.Abdul Majeed, the 7th respondent are not at all affluent enough to purchasethe vast extent of 12.27 acres of land. C.K.Jayaram is a real estate agent doingbusiness on a small scale and Abdul Majeed is hailing from an ordinary middle classfamily. It is reported by the Revenue Secretary in the report that the intendingbuyers C.K.Jayaram and Abdul Majeed were only land brokers who would help SuhraBeevi to alienate 11.75 acres of land in item No.I; 45 cents in item No.II, 2.00 acresin item No.III and 15.00 cents in item No.IV. It is further reported that it is notknown how such documents got registered at the Principal Sub Registrar Office,Thiruvananthapuram as per Registration Act, 1908 warrants further investigation(page 35-36 of the report). On a moderate estimate, the properties for whichagreements were executed having its location within the Corporation limits isworth more than ₹ 5 Lakhs per cent. For purchasing 12.27 acres of land an amountof more than ₹ 60 Crores is required. Advance amount paid is only ₹ 10 Lakhs. Forpurchasing the property worth more than ₹ 60 Crores, it is totally unbelievable thatthe owners of the property will accept ₹ 10 Lakhs as advance. In the fair value notification produced along with the statement filed by the petitioners dated6.1.2014 , the fair value of the commercial plot in Kadakampally Village is 10 Lakhsper are and residential plot with PWD road frontage ₹ 4.94 Lakhs per Are and withPanchayath road frontage ₹ 4,32,200/- per Are. It is pointed out that there are 10metre wide roads and 108 apartments were constructed by the Confident Groupbesides 71 houses situated in the property. The property consists of two bigapartment complexes and residential flats owned by Confident Group. The mainroad leading to the city is lying at a 10-12 metres distance. The road passing through



the properties leads to the National Highway, KIMS Hospital and other institutions.

50. The agreements itself seems to be not genuine as the same is executed withoblique motives. Sellers are Muhammed Fathima and her children who are partyrespondents 8 to 15 and 19 to 25 and 17 & 18 who are third persons. The agreementincludes the property claimed by the petitioners in Sy.Nos.1279- 1288. Due to theserious complaints levelled against the parties, the parties desisted from enforcingthe agreements. The period fixed for execution of the sale deed was 11 months.The other two agreements referred are agreement No.1031/2012 executed on16.3.2012 covering portions of 11.75 acres and agreement No.1034/2012 dated16.8.2012 covering portions of 15.12 acres. The party respondents created the saledeeds in 2005 & 2006 and applied for mutation. They created the sale deed infavour of others. An extent of 5.50 acres in Sy.No.1602 was sold to four person in2005 and vide five sale deeds they purported to sell 7.35 acres to others. The twodocuments executed as aforesaid in 2005 & 2006 are registered in the SRO, Varkalaand Pothencode respectively. Partition deed in favour of the party respondents wasregistered in the SRO, Thiruvananthapuram. The intention behind the registration ofthe documents in respect of 5.50 acres and 7.35 acres before the SRO, Varkala andSRO, Pothencode is not known. Registration of different sale deeds before differentSRO other than Thiruvananthapuram may be for concealing the transaction from thereal owners of the property. Three sale deeds were executed by the 15threspondent A.M.Ashraf during the period 2012-13. Allegation of the petitioners isthat the agreements were executed at the behest of the land Mafia gang lead bySalim Raj, respondent No.26, the then Gunman in the office of the Chief Minister,who is stated to be the Chief of the Mafia group. Salim Raj requested Dr.AshokKumar, who is one of the associates of the petitioners, in the month of December,2012 to arrange a meeting. It was agreed that Salim Raj, the prospective vendeesand Dileep, who is the 28th respondent will meet Dr.Ashok Kumar at his residence.The meeting took place at the residence of Dr.Ashok Kumar. A few days later, SalimRaj wanted another meeting and the place of meeting was fixed at the GovernmentGuest House, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram. Salim Raj, Jayaram and others werepresent at the Government Guest House, Thycaud. The said meeting was with thepower of attorney holder of the petitioners Sri.S.Balu. It is stated in the complaintmarked as Ext.P21 that the gang members told the complainant that they havealready obtained ownership over the land and there is no need for any furtherdiscussion in the matter. They told to Sri.S.Balu that they know how to get the landfor which they paid advance. Again another meeting was arranged at the office ofDr.Ashok Kumar at Poojappura. It is stated in Ext.P21 complaint that Salim Raj,Abdul Majeed, Dileep, Ashok Kumar and the power of attorney holder of thepetitioners Sri.S.Balu were present. In the discussion the gang members conveyedtheir decision to take over the land with or without the co-operation of thepetitioners. They also informed the petitioners that it will not be possible to tradethe land to anybody else other than them. When the petitioners refused to agreewith the attitude, Salim Raj offered to withdraw their claims if the complainantsurrender 50% of the land. Ext.P15 is the counter affidavit filed by the 2ndrespondent in W.P.(C).No.8720/2012 filed by Muhammed Fathima. The counteraffidavit was filed by the deputy Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Thiruvananthapuram. In



the counter affidavit it is inter alia stated that the report of the Village Officer,Kadakampally reveals that the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.8720/2012 are not inpossession of any of the lands comprised in the disputed survey numbers and othersurvey numbers of Kadakampally Village. It is further stated that the land is in thepossession of various other persons and no land comprised in the said surveynumbers stand in the name of the petitioners as per the Village records and hencethe Village Officer cannot receive land tax from the petitioners. W.P.(C).No.8720/2012 stands dismissed. It is clear from the circumstances that theattempt of the gang is to grab the properties on the strength of manipulated andfalse entries in the revenue records and to offer some amounts to the persons whoare the owners of the land so as to get release of their right in their favour. Itseems that the conduct of respondents 8 to 25 is to knock off the property for asmall price by threatening the persons in possession of the property on the strengthof falsified revenue records.

51. In the report of the Deputy Director, Vigilance, South Zone dated 1.7.2013 it isstated that there was an attempt to grab 45.54 acres of land worth crores ofrupees, that about 200 families, who are the real owners of the property are unableto remit the land tax, that complaints will have to be investigated and strict actionsshall also have to be taken against the officers who are responsible for the same.During June, 2013 and continuously thereafter various newspapers and mediasreported the attempt of land grabbing and the creation of fake title deeds by theGunman of the Chief Minister, Salim Raj and his gang. Exts.P24 to P30 are thecopies of the newspaper reports in Kadakampally case. It is reported that theformer Gunman of the Chief Minister and his gang by using their influence and cloutattempted to deprive the properties from the owners at Edappally andKadakampally. It is reported that the forged documents drawn up by revenueofficials have lead to the Land Revenue Commissioner's decision and that this wasmade possible by the influence wielded by Salim Raj and his wife, who is employedin the office of the Land Revenue Commissioner. It is also reported that the ChiefMinister's office was misused by Salim Raj and that the original documents in theRevenue Department were destroyed by the officials in the Village Office with theassistance of staffs of the District Collector's office.

52. The materials produced and examined would prima facie reveal involvement ofofficers of the highest level as well. Source of income for the purchase of vastextent of land which is very valuable lying within the Corporation limits and thepersons behind the purchase are areas to be investigated. Several crores of rupeesare involved in the deal. The investigating agency will have to investigate and bookthe persons who are financing the deal. Fabrication of revenue records, commissionof forgery, falsification and destruction of records and documents for the purposeof knocking off vast extent of property would prima facie reveal that criminaloffences have been committed by persons wielding high influence in theadministration of the State. It is not known till now for whose behalf and whosebenefit the properties are attempted to be purchased from persons who are allegedto have no title to the property. In all probability the persons behind the screen aremighty persons wielding influence in the political administration of the State. A full



fledged investigation is necessarily to be conducted to reveal the role of Salim Raj,the former Gunman of the Chief Minister, his wife, who are respondents in the twowrit petitions, party respondents and other big wigs, whose names have not so farcome to lime light.

53. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C). No.19462/2013 submittedthat in spite of various complaints namely, Exts.P31 to 34 lodged raising very seriousallegations against the officials of the Revenue Department, Salim Raj thesuspended Gunman of the Chief Minister, his wife and others, till date, no crimewas registered. In the statement filed on behalf of the 4th respondent, Director,Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, it is inter alia stated that the 4th respondenthad initiated vigilance enquiry in relation to the allegations raised in respect of45.54 acres and the same is in full swing. 4th respondent reported that at presentmore than 150 families are residing in the land who claim title as per documentsheld by them and that they have also paid land tax up to 2012-13. It is stated thatinclusion of land in Thandaper No.3587 is a patent illegality. The 4th respondent alsostated that the scope of vigilance enquiry is limited to the involvement ofGovernment Officials into the illegal acts alleged to have been done by them tohelp the persons claiming to have title over the property. From the statement it isclear that the police is not taking any action, registering cases or to investigate thevery serious allegations raised in the complaint.

54. In the light of the statement of the 38th respondent that call details for oneyear period is only available, the Kerala Police may not be able to retrieve thevoice records and tapes for the period beyond one year. It is pointed out that CBIalone can retrieve such records beyond the period of one year up to a period ofthree years to unearth the collusive affair, conspiracy, fraud and other offencescommitted alleged to have been taken place during 2011-13.

55. Petitioners contend in Kadakampally case that they are the co-owners of 12.27acres of land in Sy.No.1279, 1280, 1281 to 1288 of Kadakampally Village. Theyobtained the property as per the registered Otti Transfer Deed No.2882/1969 ofSRO, Thiruvananthapuram. Their father, who purchased the jenmom right, hadassigned the jenmom right to the petitioners. The properties were mutated to thename of the petitioners and they are paying the land tax thereon eversince 1980.Ext.P2 is the Otti transfer Deed No.2882/1969. Ext.P35 is the prior Otti assignmentdeed of the year 1960. Sale deed No.2019/1968 executed by the jenmies of theproperty in favour of K.P.Ramachandran Nair, who is the father of the petitioners ismarked as Ext.P36. Ext.P37 is the judgment in O.S.No.38/1120 of the District Court,Thiruvananthapuram in which the property in dispute has been brought to sale.Petitioners also produced photocopy of the letter dated 23.7.2011 issued bySri.T.K.Thomas, receiver in O.S.No.85/1971, as Ext.P38. In Ext.P22 report dated1.7.2013, prepared by the Deputy Collector, South Zone, Vigilance and in the reportsubmitted by the Revenue Secretary, it is stated that the receiver does not havephysical possession of the property in Kadakampally Village. From the materials onrecord it is seen that neither the receiver nor the legal heirs of Abdul Rehman Kunjuever had possession of the disputed properties in Kadakampally Village. Learned



counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to page No.14 Point No.3 in Ext.P22report wherein it was reported that the direction in Ext.P10 judgment to giveeffect to A4 partition agreement, the compromise agreement does not refer to any items in the disputed property scheduled in Kadakampally Village.

56. As per the settlement register maintained during the regime of Maharaja ofTravancore the disputed land belonged to the jenmies, M/s.Koovakkara Madom.They had created Otti right in favour of joint family of one Kanakku PadmanabhaPillai and Madhavan Nair, Vaiyakalathu Veedu by way of Otti and Kuzhikkanam. Therelevant pages of settlement register is produced and marked as Ext.P5. Later, byvirtue of partition deed No.2509/1101 ME of SRO, Thiruananthapuram, the landsalong with Otti liability devolved upon Madhavan Nair. It is the case of thepetitioners that rights in the property has been brought to sale in O.S.No.38/1120on 15.11.1950 and was purchased by Narayana Potti Shambu Potti in court auction.Sale was confirmed on 7.8.1951 and delivery of possession was obtained throughthe process of court on 19.8.1954. As per registered Otti No.2313/1960 of SRO,Thiruvananthapuram, Madhavan Nair and his wife transferred the Otti rights overthe said property to the name of Vasudevan Pillai and Vasu Pillai. Later, jenmomrights have been purchased by K.P.Ramachandran Nair, father of petitioners fromthe legal heirs of Narayana Potti Shambu Potti as per sale deed No.2019/1968 ofSRO, Thiruvananthapuram marked as Ext.P36. It is submitted that the father of thepetitioners paid the balance mortgage amount as directed by the Sub Court,Thiruvananthapuram in O.S.No.94/1968 and released the mortgage and paid tax andthe petitioners have purchased the Otti rights in the property from the aforesaidVasudevan Pillai and Vasu Pillai as per document No.2882/1969 marked as Ext.P2.Petitioners had effected mutation of the properties to their own names also andpaying tax thereon in T.P.No.10150. None of the parties had approached any civilcourt till date for declaration of title and for related reliefs. After hearing bothsides, I make it clear that this Court has not entered any finding regarding the titleto the properties. Aggrieved party or parties are at liberty to approach the civilcourt to establish title over the properties, if so advised.

57. Crime No.1646/2013 registered by the Kalamassery Police Station wastransferred for further investigation to the CBCID vide order dated 5.10.2013 and isrenumbered as Crime No.349/Cr/EOW-II/KTM/13. The Superintendent of Police,CBCID, EOW-II, Kottayam had taken over investigation. Crime No.1646/13 wasregistered only on 17.8.13, i.e., after the filing of the writ petition and after thepublication of newspaper and media reports continuously from the June, 2013raising hue and cry on the attempts of land grabbing and creation of fake titledeeds. On 18.8.13, the Superintendent of Police, Kalamassery Police Stationrecorded the statement of the 2nd petitioner in Edappally case. The 2nd petitionernamed several person including Salim Raj, the Gunman of the Chief Minister, hiswife, who is working at the Revenue Commissionarate and several revenueofficials. In Ext.P28 complaint dated 13.6.2013 lodged before the Home Minister,the 2nd petitioner named several persons including the gunman of the ChiefMinister, Salim Raj, District Collector, Land Revenue Commissioner and severalothers. In another complaint dated 21.06.2013 submitted to the Home Minister all



the names mentioned in Ext.P28 complaint has been repeated. In Exts.P28 & P29complaints, the 2nd petitioner named 12 persons including named Tahsildar,Additional Tahsildar, District Collector and Land Revenue Commissioner. In Ext.P30complaint dated 21.6.2013 filed by the petitioners to the Chief Minister the verysame names were repeated alleging that all of them are involved in thecontroversy. Besides these, Ext.P31 complaint was also lodged before the InspectorGeneral of Police, Kochi Range, Ernakulam dated 1.7.2013. On a perusal of the FIRregistered by the Kalamassery Police Station and CBCID, it is seen that the case wasregistered against the Village Officer, Staff of Thrikkakara North Village Office andthree private persons. Though repeatedly complaints have been received byvarious authorities and in spite of recording of the statement of the petitioners it isseen that till date, apart from five persons, the police had not implicated any ofthe higher officials against whom specific allegations are made in all the complaintslodged before the Chief Minister, Home Minister, Inspector General of Police andothers. Though serious allegations are levelled against several persons in respect ofa deal involving several crores of rupees, originally, the case was investigated bythe Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkakara for the period from 5.9.2013 till9.10.2013. The crime was transferred to CBCID by order dated 5.10.2013 and theCommissioner of Police commenced investigation from 10.10.2013. The AssistantCommissioner of Police recorded the statement of the 2nd petitioner on 4.10.2013.The statement contains the details of the allegations of forgery, fraud, falsificationof records and other criminal acts committed by named persons and others. So farno investigation has been directed as to who are the real persons behind the dealand as to for and on whose behalf the revenue officials are involved in the allegedconspiracy. Investigation will have to be directed as to the source of income or thepersons who are behind the deal and regarding investment of several crores ofrupees in connection with the purchase of land. The learned counsel for thepetitioners submits that on 17.8.2013, highly belatedly, the Deputy Commissioner ofPolice recorded the statement of the 1st petitioner, a pardanashin lady and a formalstatement from the 2nd petitioner saying that it was for the purpose of forwardinga report to the inspector General and that further statement would be recordedlater. According to the petitioner, but, apparently this was only an eyewash basedon the incomplete and vague statement recorded from the 1st petitioner, a totallyuseless and farcical FIR had been recorded, implicating only a few Village Officialsand three among the party respondents. The other accused, particularly respondents2, 6 to 20, etc. are not added as accused even today. The counsel also pointed outthat instead of investigating the criminal offences in both cases including theallegation with regard to the offences of manipulation of official records, creationof false records and report and destruction of original records like thandaperNo.8826, the police enquiry is being deliberately diverted to conduct an enquiryinto the title of the petitioners viz-a-viz the title of respondents 8 to 13. Thepolice has not taken any steps to question either the then Land RevenueCommissioner or the other officials involved, reported by the Principal Secretary tobe involved in the incidents or the respondents 8 to 13, or to add any of them asaccused in the crime, clearly evidencing that the investigation is totally dis-satisfactory, deliberately misdirected and aimed at creating a clout, confusion andto sweep the entire issue under the carpet, rather than to identify or to take action



against the real offenders. It is also pointed out that police has not been botheredeven to place any requisition for seizure of the telephone records of the accusedpersons also. The writ petition itself was filed in Edappally case finding that noproper and fair investigation has been initiated by the police. The writ petition inKadakampally case was filed complaining that in spite of several complaints,including Exts.P31 to P34, not even a crime is registered by the police though masscorruption and conspiracy involving higher officials and big wigs are brought to thenotice of the police. The enquiry in Kadakampally case by the Vigilance Departmentis also highly belated only after the filing of the writ petitions. The public interestinvolved is evident from the fact that even the land which had been acquired bythe Government for the purpose of widening of Aamiyazhanchan thodu having anextent of 2= acres of land in various survey numbers is also now included in thefraudulent thandaper No.3587 proving a fraudulent attempt to knock off valuableproperties belonging to the Irrigation Department (State of Kerala) also through suchforgery and fabrication. The fact is that even though respondents 8 to 25 tried totake shelter behind a plea of civil dispute, there is no suit filed by them before anycivil court against petitioners nor is any suit filed by petitioners against therespondents. The party respondents have not filed any suit for declaration,redemption of mortgage or recovery of possession before any court of law eventoday. I have referred in this judgment the Pauper Original Petition No.13/1960 re-numbered as O.S.No.4/1965 and O.S.No.14/1969 re-numbered as O.S.No.85/1971.Admittedly the said suits are allowed to be withdrawn without any reservationsstating only that the parties have decided to abide by an out of court settlementthey had entered into even prior to the filing of the said suit. In the said suits, thepetitioners or their predecessors are not parties. Thus, it is clear that till date nosuit was however filed or pending for redemption of mortgage or for recovery ofpossession. Petitioners claim right over the properties under assignees of legalheirs of original otti holders.

58. I have also verified the vigilance enquiry reports, both preliminary and final,submitted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau pursuant to the interimdirections issued by this Court. The reports of the Vigilance and Anti CorruptionBureau reveals the involvement of several persons in the alleged conspiracy andother criminal acts. The Vigilance enquiry Report also recommends a detailedinvestigation. On a perusal of the Case Diary of CBCID, EOW-II, Kottayam, it is seenthat no progress has been made though they have re-numbered the crime and saidto have started investigation on 10.10.2013.

59. The well founded apprehension expressed by the petitioners in both writpetitions is that at the instance of Salim Raj, the suspended Gunman of the ChiefMinister, and at the intervention of the office of the Chief Minister, the officialrespondents were not taking any action in spite of the proven falsification andfabrication of records by some of the officers in the Revenue Department includingrespondents 29 to 32 in collusion with respondents 6 to 28 in W.P.(C).No.19462/2013 and respondents 8 to 13, 20 and respondents 18 & 19 in W.P. (C).No.19431/2013. Itis highlighted that since there is absolute inaction on the part of police officials intaking action on the complaints and representations made by the petitioners, no



purpose will be served by waiting any longer and proper enquiry has to beconducted into the gross abuse of power, political connection and other extraneousinfluences involved in the case, petitioners have to approach this Court underArticle 226 of the constitution of India.

60. The learned counsel Sri.M.P.Ramanathan on behalf of the intending buyers fairlyconceded that the so called buyers have no means to pay Rs.13.37 Crores agreed tobe paid as consideration to the sellers. It is not known from where the source ofincome come and who are the big wigs who wanted to invest several crores ofrupees in the deal. From the very facts and circumstances, it is not believable orconclude that the Gunman of the Chief Minister, who is only a police constable, willbe able to invest so much of funds for purchase of the property. This is not a casewhere the properties attempted to be purchased are with funds invested or to beinvested by some persons having means. The materials in the case would primafacie show that the party respondents have created false documents, forged andfalsified Thandaper of the properties, bribed, compelled and influenced officialsand fabricated false documents in the name of certain persons to facilitate purchaseof the property from such persons including persons who are not in possession andenjoyment of the property for the last several decades. It is evident from thecircumstances that though the agreements for sale executed are for purchase of12.27 acres out of 45.50 acres, it is a first step as there is the possibility of enteringinto more agreement for purchase of balance properties. It appears that there iswidespread collusion and conspiracy among the party respondents and revenueofficials to defeat the title of the petitioners so as to cause undue enrichment forparty respondents and others through misuse and abuse of official position. In theaforesaid circumstances, there is every justification for the petitioners to comeforward and say that if the investigation is carried out by the police personnel of the Kerala State, the petitioners and their family members would be highlyprejudiced, that the investigation would not come to an end with proper findingsand if the investigation is allowed to be carried out by them, investigation will benamesake and in that circumstances it would be fit and proper that the petitionersand other similarly affected persons should be assured that an independent agencyshould look into the matter that would lend the final outcome of the investigation,credible, however faithfully the local police may carry out the investigation,particularly when serious allegations have been made against the higher revenueofficials, Chief Minister's Office and police officials. It is well settled that whenhigher officials of the State were allegedly involved in the crime the interest ofjustice would be better served if the investigation is directed to be carried out bythe CBI Authorities and in that case CBI Authorities would be an appropriateauthority to investigate the case. It is settled principle of law that in a case wherethe police had not acted fairly and acted in a partisan manner to shield real culprits,it would be proper and interest of justice will be served if such investigation ishanded over to the CBI authorities or an independent agency.

61. In the background of the allegation that the police is totally ineffective in twocases, this Court finds that the investigation carried out so far is incomplete apartfrom suspicious in the background of alleged involvement of big wigs in the political



and administrative sectors. On an evaluation of the facts and circumstances of thecase, this Court is of the view that these are extra ordinary cases and that thepetitioners are fully justified in approaching this Court seeking extra ordinaryjurisdiction for a direction to entrust the investigation to a special agency like theCBI.

62. The legal principles relating to CBI Enquiry is well settled. The ConstitutionBench of the Apex Court considered the scope of Article 32 and 226 of theConstitution of India in relation to the investigations to be conducted by the CBI.The Constitutional Court specifically considered the question that a direction to CBIto investigate a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within theterritory of a State is valid and whether any Act of the Parliament exclude orcurtail the powers of Constitutional Courts with regard to the enforcement offundamental rights and other issues. In the decision reported in State of WestBengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010(3) SCC 571) theApex Court held that a direction of the High Court to investigate a cognizableoffence alleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without theconsent of that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of theConstitution nor violate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid andthat no Act of the Parliament exclude or curtail the powers of Constitutional Courtwith regard to the enforcement of fundamental rights and other issues. The matterwas discussed and principles laid down in the context of Section 6 of the DelhiSpecial Police Establishment Act, 1946. The Apex Court held that;

"When the Special Police Act itself provides that subject to the consent by theState, the CBI can take up investigation in relation to the crime which wasotherwise within the jurisdiction of the State Police, the court can also exercise itsconstitutional power of judicial review and direct the CBI to take up theinvestigation within the jurisdiction of the State. The power of the High Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be taken away, curtailed or diluted bySection 6 of the Special Police Act. Irrespective of there being any statutoryprovision acting as a restriction on the powers of the Courts, the restrictionimposed by Section 6 of the Special Police Act on the powers of the Union, cannotbe read as restriction on the powers of the Constitutional Courts. Therefore,exercise of power of judicial review by the High court, in our opinion, would notamount to infringement of either the doctrine of separation of power or the federalstructure. A direction by the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article226 of the Constitution of India, to the CBI to investigate a cognizable offencealleged to have been committed within the territory of a State without the consentof that State will neither impinge upon the federal structure of the Constitution norviolate the doctrine of separation of power and shall be valid in law. Being theprotectors of civil liberties of the citizens, the Apex Court and High Courts havenot only the power and jurisdiction but also an obligation to protect thefundamental rights, guaranteed by Part III in general and under Article 21 of theConstitution in particular, zealously and vigilantly. Despite wide powers conferredby Articles 32 & 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts mustbear in mind certain self- imposed limitations on the exercise of these



Constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articlesrequires great caution in its exercise. In so far as the question of issuing a directionto the CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexibleguidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should beexercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to bepassed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled someallegations against the local police. This extra- ordinary power must be exercisedsparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary toprovide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incidentmay have national and international ramifications or where such an order may benecessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights".

The very same principle was restated in State of Maharashtra v. Farook MohammedKasim Mapkar and others (2010 (8) SCC 582).

63. In the decision in Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat and others (2011(5) SCC 79)the Apex Court held that "if majesty of rule of law is to be upheld and if it is to beensured that guilty are punished in accordance with law notwithstanding their statusand authority which they might have enjoyed, it is desirable to entrustinvestigation to CBI". The Apex Court held in the facts of the said case that nomatter how faithfully and honestly the local police may carry out the investigation,the same will lack credibility as allegations were directed against them. This Court,therefore, thought it both desirable and advisable, in the interest of justice, toentrust the case to the CBI so that it must complete the investigation at an earlydate. The court further held that in appropriate cases, the court is empowered tohandover investigation to an independent agency like CBI even when the chargesheet has been submitted.

64. A Division Bench of this Court in the decision reported in George Muthoot M.G.v. State of Kerala and others [2010(1) KHC 329 (DB)] reiterated the principles of lawgoverning the subject. This Court held that in order to assure the victims of heinouscrime an assurance of fair, proper, impartial and complete investigation and torestore faith, it is just and proper to direct the CBI to conduct investigationparticularly when gross allegations are made against jurisdictional investigatingagency justifiable and as such interest of justice would be better served if CBIinvestigates the case.

65. The Apex Court in the decision reported in State of Punjab v. Davinder PalSingh Bhullar and others (AIR 2012 SC 364) held as follows: "The Court can directCBI investigation only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is of the viewthat the accusation is against a person who by virtue of his post could influence theinvestigation and it may prejudice the cause of complainant, and it is necessary soto do in order to do complete justice and make the investigation credible".

66. In Sakkiri Vasu v. State of UP and others (supra) the dead body of the son of theappellant was found on 23.8.2003 at Mathura Railway Station. GRP, Mathurainvestigated the matter and gave a detailed report on 29.8.2003 stating that the



death was due to an accident or suicide. The Army officials at Mathura also heldtwo courts of enquiry and both times submitted the report that the deceased hadcommitted suicide at Mathura Junction. The Apex Court observed that there was aninvestigation by GRP, Mathura and also two courts of enquiry was held by the Armyofficials and they found that it was a case of suicide and hence the High Courtrejected the prayer for CBI enquiry. It is true that in that case the Apex Court heldthat the remedy lies under Section 36 and 154(3) Cr.P.C before the police officersconcerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C before theMagistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C and not byfiling a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court was ofthe opinion that High Court should not encourage the practice of persons rushing tothe High Court to file writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. HighCourt should not encourage the practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere insuch matters and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, first underSection 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C before the police officers concerned, and ifthat is of no avail, by approaching the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3).There was investigation firstly by GRP, Mathura and gave a detailed report.Subsequently, Army officials of Mathura also held two courts of enquiry. Both timessubmitted a report that the deceased had committed suicide at the railway track.In the peculiar circumstance of that case the Apex Court held that the remedy liesunder Section 36 and 154(3) and alternatively under Section 156(3) or under Section200 Cr.P.C. The principles laid down in that decision is not applicable to the factsof the present case. 66(a). The dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the decisionreported in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited etc. v. Union of India (1975 SC460) was relied on by the learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar. In the said casethe Apex Court quoted with approval the general rule in Halsbury's Laws of England(3rd Edition, Vol.13 p.106):

"As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of hasknown what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of consideringwhether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there wasa distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires toenforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal."

The principle of law was declared by the Apex Court while dealing with anotification dated 28.6.1967 issued by the Central Government under Clause 7 ofthe Sugar (Control) Order, 1966 fixing ex-factory prices for sugar factories specifiedin the notification. The writ petition was filed for quashing the impugnednotification and appropriate orders in the nature of mandamus. The said decisionwas rendered by the Apex Court in the context of examining a notification and inthe realm of administration of law. The said principles cannot be applied to thefacts of the present case. 66(b). The decision reported in Aleque Padamsree andothers v. Union of India and others (2007(6) SCC 171) was relied on by learnedsenior counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar and Sri.S.Sreekumar. In that case the allegation wasthat the speeches made by respondents 5 & 6 were likely to disturb the communalharmony in the country and the likely result of such inflammatory speeches was tocreate hatred in the minds of citizens against the persons belonging to minority



communities. The basic grievance is that though commission of offence punishableunder the Indian Penal Code was disclosed in the report lodged by the two persons,the police officials did not register the FIR and therefore, the petition was filedunder Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to the police toregister the cases and wherever necessary accord sanction in terms of Section 196Cr.P.C. In that case it was contended before the Apex Court that on a bare readingof the complaint lodged it appears that no offence was made out and whenever acomplaint is lodged automatically and in a routine manner FIR is not to beregistered. In any event, it is submitted that petition under Article 32of theConstitution is not a proper remedy. In that context, the Apex Court held thatwhenever a complaint is received by the police about the alleged commission ofoffence which is a cognizable one there is a duty to register the FIR and that incase the police officials failed to do so, the modalities to be adopted are underSection 190 r/w Section 200 Cr.P.C. The said decision is also not applicable squarelyon the facts of the present case. The grievance of the petitioners in the presentwrit petitions are different. Their apprehension is that since office of the ChiefMinister and other higher officials are involved in the case, they will not get anyjustice from the Kerala Police and therefore invoking ordinary remedy providedunder the Cr.P.C will not serve ends of justice. The learned counsel are notjustified in relying on the aforesaid decisions. Those decisions were rendered onentirely different situations. It may not be proper for this Court to apply the saidprinciples to the facts of this case for the purpose of declining relief to thepetitioners.

67. The Apex Court has repeatedly cautioned all the courts in the country that theextra ordinary power in issuing directions to the CBI to conduct investigation in acase must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where itbecomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations orwhere the incident may have national and international ramifications or where suchan order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing thefundamental rights.

68. From the aforesaid facts and reply affidavits filed in the cases make it clear thatthe petitioners in both cases are thoroughly dissatisfied with the investigationcommenced, that they do not have faith in the investigation by the State Policeincluding CBCID and they press for granting their prayer for CBI investigation intothe offences alleged. The involvement of respondents 18 & 19 is also prima facieevident from the meetings the 18th respondent held with the representative of the petitioners and the involvement of respondents 18 & 19 is clear also frommanipulations done in the office of the Land Revenue Commissioner, immediatelyafter the transfer of the 19th respondent to that office in February, 2012 and thefrequent interference in the office of higher officials as evidenced by Annexure-XIreport of the Revenue Secretary. Highly belatedly FIR has been registeredimplicating only three of the party respondents and two officials of the lower levelin the Village Office in Edappally case. Subsequent to the registration of FIR, thoughpetitioners produced innumerable documents and other materials showing theinvolvement of 18th respondent, Land Revenue Commissioner, Assistant Land



Revenue Commissioner, two Additional Tahsildars, respondents 8 to 13, 19 & 20,none of them are even now included in the array of the accused. The materialsperused disclose that the alleged accused are very powerful and influential personsincluding the State authorities like officers of the Land Revenue Commissioner,Private Secretaries to the Ministers, gunman of the Chief Minister of the State andothers.

69. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances, this Court is refrainedfrom expressing any opinion on the allegations made by the petitioners, but,thought it wise to have the incident investigated by an independent agency like CBIso that it may bear credibility. This Court also felt that no matter how faithfully andhonestly the local police may carry out the investigation, the same will lackcredibility as allegations were directed against highest revenue officials, office ofthe Chief Minister and others. If the majesty of the rule of law is to be upheld andif it is to be ensured that the guilty are punished in accordance with lawnotwithstanding their status and authority which they might have enjoyed, it isdesirable to entrust the investigation to CBI.

70. The prima facie materials from the fact finding reports tabled by the RevenueDepartment Officials points to the serious criminal offences as observed in the pleasfrom the petitioners. There are serious allegations of party respondents colludingand conspiring with Revenue Department Officials in forging and fabricating falsedocuments and records including the concoction of false thandaper for the purposeof defeating the title of the petitioners. The properties are located in twodifferent districts and within the limits of Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram andCochin. In both cases the allegations are raised against Salim Raj, the Gunman (nowunder suspension) in the office of the Chief Minister and he is described as the gangleader of the land mafia. It is evident from the records that he and his associateshave held multiple meetings with the land owners and had pressurised them to partwith the land. There are also complaints in the Kadakampally case that the gunmanhad threatened the petitioners with dire consequences if they denied the demands.Moreover, the same team is involved in both incidents and the method of operationis also same. It has also been submitted that a criminal case has been registered bythe Chevayoor Police (Kozhikode) against Salim Raj in 2013 in connection with akidnapping case. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that otherpersonal staff of the Chief Minister is involved in a cheating case popularly known as'Saritha's case' and that another personal staff is under suspension for similarreasons. All the incidents observed above have evoked shock and surprise amongthe people of Kerala. The alleged involvement of the members of the personal staffof the Chief Minister's office in criminal acts has come to the attention of this Courtat multiple instances. The above incidents show that the authorities at the helm ofaffairs of the administration in the State have not been prudent and responsible inappointing personal staff with integrity and character. The Chief Minister's officeshould be a model institution serving the people of the State. The above incidentshave raised serious questions on the functioning of the Chief Minister's office forwhich the Chief Minister is answerable to the State. Prima facie evidence of thepresence of unscrupulous elements among the personal staff in the Chief Minister's



Office and the associated criminal activities in these cases call for a thorough andindependent investigation into the crime and the associated activities involvingpersonal staff in the Chief Minister's Office.

71. For the reasons and observations made by this Court in paragraphs 45 to 54, 58to 62 and 66 to 70 this Court is convinced that the materials on record is sufficientto direct investigation by CBI. The power under Article 226 can be exercised only incases where there is sufficient materials to come to a prima facie conclusion thatthere is a need for such enquiry. I find that a direction for investigation isnecessarily to be issued since offences are made out prima facie by several personsincluding higher officials and persons who are capable of wielding high influenceand pressure in the field of administration. The State Government had expressed noobjection in ordering investigation by CBI. In the result, the writ petitions areallowed. This Court direct the police officers who are in charge of investigationand the revenue officials to hand over all the case records including vigilanceenquiry report to the CBI which shall commence further investigation and completethe same within a period of nine months from the date of taking over theinvestigation. The CBI shall register FIR in Kadakampally case since no FIR was registered pursuant to Exts.P31 to P34 complaints. CBI shall investigate the casefrom all angles, take assistance of the petitioners, Revenue Intelligence, Vigilanceand Anti Corruption Bureau, Police, other agencies and submit a final report to thejurisdictional court and is at liberty to peruse all documents produced in the casesincluding the reports of the Secretary to Government, enquiry reports of Vigilanceand Anti Corruption Bureau, report of Revenue Intelligence etc. Registry shall sendcopy of this judgment to the Director, CBI and the Secretary, Ministry of HomeAffairs, New Delhi forthwith. It is made clear that findings and observations madein this judgment is only for the purpose of deciding the issue whether investigationis to be handed over to the CBI or not and shall not be construed as an expression ofopinion on the question of title to the properties. There will be a direction to theRegistry to send back the vigilance reports in sealed packets.

HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-

Documents

N.a. Shareefa vs State of Kerala