Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 518 (KER)

Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. v. Gowri

2013-06-24

BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH, THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

body2013
Judgment :- Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Heard. 2. These two appeals arise from a suit filed by the appellants in RFA No.239 of 2013. They sued for injunction and later, for damages on allegation that the defendant had trespassed into the properties and has cut and removed certain trees. The defendant, Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd., stood to say that sometime in 1978 lands have been allotted to them through Government orders and the process of demarcating and identifying those properties is still going on. Even now it is not over. By this time, any person reasonably instructed in matters relating to survey, could have measured out the entire State of Kerala, at least, ten times. 3. Be that as it may, the trial court granted some relief to the plaintiffs and deferred the question of damages to be quantified in execution after holding that the relief may be due on the question of bona fide cultivation. 4. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that the direction regarding damages as done by the court below is wholly contrary to law, since the defendant had asserted title to property. 5. It is surprising that the defendant, which deals with public money, did not choose even to place papers before the court below. No Government order or other documents evidencing the so-called title of the defendant were placed. A former Manager of the defendant gave evidence as DW 1. 6. The court below, in our considered view, should not have gone ahead with the trial, when primarily it was noticeable ex facie that the litigation was fundamentally relatable to land originally belonging to the Government. The plaintiffs claim title on the basis of land assignment. The defendant claims on the basis of Government orders. This much was sufficient for the court below to have alerted itself and obtained the participation of the State Government through a competent officer as a party to the trial court proceedings. Remember, judiciary has a vital role to play in protecting the national wealth. The constitutional obligation as responsible repository of the authority under the Constitution includes the duty to be vigilant in such situations. Remember, judiciary has a vital role to play in protecting the national wealth. The constitutional obligation as responsible repository of the authority under the Constitution includes the duty to be vigilant in such situations. We are of the view that the issues involved in the suit ought not to have been adjudicated upon without the junction of the District Collector, Kasaragod District, who represents the interest of the State revenue and the Central revenue in that district. Having regard to the provisions of Order I, in particular, Rule 8A, the court below ought to have notified the District Collector, so that the State of Kerala, represented by the District Collector is impleaded to ensure that the issues placed for trial before that court do, in any manner, infringe public interest and national wealth. 7. Having regard to what is aforesaid, the impugned decree is liable to be set aside and the case is liable to be remanded to the court below for fresh proceedings, in accordance with law. Any interlocutory order, which was in force before the trial court during trial, will continue to hold good till the suit is tried and disposed of de novo, following the order of remand that we hereby make. In the result, the impugned decree and judgment are set aside allowing these appeals, though for reasons different from what have been raised by both the appellants. We leave open all questions for consideration de novo by the court below. The appellants will be entitled to refund of the entire court fee paid or payable on these appeals, having regard to the reason for, and the nature of, this order of remand. We also record that RFA No.239 of 2013 has been instituted by the plaintiffs as indigent persons, and they will not, therefore, be liable to pay any court fee on this appeal, and there will be no proceedings for recovery on such count. The parties are directed to mark appearance before the court below on 30.07.2013. The office will communicate a copy of this judgment to the District Collector, Kasaragod.