Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2014/7TH CHAITHRA, 1936 WP(C).No. 19431 of 2013 (D) ---------------------------SHAREEFA, versus STATE OF KERALA,
HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. -----------------------W.P.C Nos.19431 & 19462 Of 2013 ---------------------Dated this the 28th day of March, 2014.
JUDGMENT Both writ petitions are filed seeking CBI investigation. 2. Though the writ petitioners in both writ petitions are different, the facts and relief sought for are similar, common questions of fact and law arises for consideration and therefore, both cases were heard jointly and a common judgment is 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 of an extent of 116 cents in Survey No.651/8A, 651/8B and 651/8C of Thrikkakara North Village. Respondents 1 to 7 are the State of Kerala and the Officials of the Revenue, 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 (now under suspension) of the Chief Minister of Kerala, against whom various allegations have been made. Respondent No.19 is the wife of respondent No.18. Respondent No.19 was working in Survey Department and she was transferred to the office of the 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. Respondent No.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 as follows:The property was outstanding in the possession of Thekkesamooha Madam in Jenmom right. In 1088 M.E., Lakshmana Ayyer of Thekkesamooha Madom granted lease 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 Lakshmana Ayyer. The jenmom right of the property was transferred by the jenmy to Aliyar Kunju as per document No. 106 of 1102 M.E. A partition took place in the family of Aliyar Kunju in the year 1114 M.E and the property in dispute was allotted to Hamsa Koya, 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). Even before that Kunjan Marakkar had attorned to Hamsa Koya and the lease was renewed in favour of Kunjan Marakkar as per document No.2335 of 1116 M.E. In the year 1960, Muhammed, son of Kunjan Marakkar, sold the property to his brother Kadar Pillai. Kadar Pillai is the husband of writ petitioner No.1 and father of the other writ petitioners. Out of the extent of 1.16 acres, which Kadar Pillai got as per the sale deed of 1960, he transferred an extent of 49 cents to his wife, the first petitioner as per document No.872 of 1960. Kadar Pillai died in 1980 and the properties were partitioned among his legal representatives, as per document No.362 of 1982. Mutation was effected as per the allotment made in the partition deed and the subsequent transfers were made between the legal representatives of Kadar Pillai. The petitioners state that the original Thandaper numbers were 8826 and 8597 and after mutation effected as per the partition deed of 1982, the Thandaper number
It is also stated that after re-survey, the Thandaper number is 2127 and
later, the Thandaper was changed as 9365 to 9367 on the basis of the partition deed and subsequent transfers. 5. Respondents 8 and 10 to 13 in the writ petition filed
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 469
::5::
exclusively.
::6::
for taking necessary action as per Rules. On the same day, the
Thrikkakara North.
Mani. It was stated in the report that the old records and re-
::7::
the Village Officer not to accept basic tax. Aggrieved by the said
not to accept basic tax from the petitioners and not to issue any
Officer reported that the properties stood in the name of the writ
The Village
On
reported that till the disposal of the civil suits, all proceedings in
should be stopped.
::8::
The District
::9::
Land Revenue made a note that as per the letter dated 9.4.2012
Officer.
::10::
and everything was done in a hurry and that too, when the civil
and 8C at Pathadippalam.
::11::
respondent".
13. The
Statement
in Ext.P31 complaint
assumes
(R8), that after Sri. Ommen Chandy became the Chief Minister,
"Super Chief
to 13 jointly, R20, R16, R17, R14, R18 & R19 jointly, R26 & R27.
::12::
the complainant and the records of the Village Office and Taluk
Office etc, connected with the ownership of the land, is going on.
::13::
respondents.
::14::
1988/1967
Going by the
::15::
pattayam No.5681.
::16::
The
It is
::17::
of W.P.(C).No.23244/2012.
the two writ petitions would show that Revenue Secretary had
::18::
find that any sustainable reasons are made out for not placing
Secretary.
::19::
it is submitted that the said direction was not complied with and
rights of the State or the 4th respondent and the police force the
State was not an aggrieved party at all, yet they have challenged
that the said order was not complied with till date by the police
::20::
appropriate action.
petitioners that Ext.R4(b) letter did not see the light of the day
till 9.10.2013 after this Court had been forced to make scathing
vigilance enquiry was initiated only after the order passed by this
It is contended that
on 17.8.2013, this has also not seen the light of the day.
thereto and the huge hue and cry in the State media over the
::21::
It is clear from the fact that even the direction in Ext.R4(b) was
filed in the case even today establishing clearly the fact that the
made not into the allegations in the complaint and the truth and
genuineness of the same but into the title of the parties, which is
::22::
this case.
::23::
of Police.
that prompt and effective action had been taken by the police. It
is pointed out that the direction issued by this Court in both writ
::24::
The learned counsel also pointed out the conduct of the Deputy
pursuant thereto and due to the huge hue and cry in the state
Later
::25::
17. The
learned
Senior Government
Pleader
The Deputy
::26::
The
several years.
::27::
"We often find that when someone has a grievance that his
FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper
Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not
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
a person can only be done if the High Court after considering the
::28::
a duty to register the FIR. The course available, when the police
does not carry out the statutory requirements under Section 154
and that in case the police officials fails to do so, the modalities
aforesaid provisions.
::29::
18(a).
It is
the
CBI against a person can only be done if the High Court after
::30::
18(b).
::31::
would clearly reveal that 6th respondent has only transferred the
pointed out that Aliyar Kunju clearly recited that the said lease
::32::
complaints.
" This Court is of the view that before passing final order in
I direct the
Similar
interim order
was
passed
in the connected
W.P.(C)
No.19462/2013.
note files of the office of the RDO, Trivandrum, note files of the
::33::
of Land Revenue.
Offices, Taluk
2727/1939
[Annexure
XV], 1186/1957
Smt. Shareefa, Nazer & Noushad and Smt. Shimitha are the
::34::
through TR 402/83.
Thandaper 8826 can only belong to none other than Sri. Kadir
there is no other option but to believe that the Tax paid receipt is
Additional Tahsildar,
::35::
Registry Rules, 1966, soon after the receipt of the direction from
police investigation.
order in W.P.(C).No.19431/2013
the
::36::
The
they take the aid of Revenue records and the changes made in
rights of
::37::
would be defeated".
the name of Vallon Mani for the purpose of defeating the title of
::38::
24. The
connected
::39::
The
created
false Thandaper
No.1602
is stated that not even a crime has been registered so far in spite
::40::
The
::41::
Paragraph 6
reads as follows:
The said
Madhavan Nair and his wife transferred the tenancy rights over
Thiruvananthapuram SRO.
O.S.No.94/68 and released the mortgage and paid tax in his own
the property from the aforesaid Vasudevan Pillai and Vasu Pillai,
::42::
Out of 12.27 acres, the petitioners sold 4.38 acres with various
mortgaged
::43::
It is
::44::
could have been only at the time of fabrication just prior to the
noticed that the 9th page is significantly different; that the font
document and the signatures at the bottom of the page are also
The
::45::
documents.
It is registered at
Karakulam
SRO,
far away
The
::46::
3587 was one Krishna Panicker and the thandaper became blank
only on 16.8.1984.
said suit itself had been withdrawn and as such there cannot be
The role of
::47::
All the
Kadakampally
instead
of
thandaper No.1602 was one which was pasted just after 1601
not have the said thandaper number and that Ext.P8 (Ext.P7)
::48::
matter
was
investigated
by the Sub
Collector,
Thiruvananthapuram.
The petitioners
::49::
allege that the obvious and patent inaction on the part of the
suffice and will not serve any purpose. The writ petition is filed
::50::
Zone and
that the 'zero' Thandaper No.3587 had been written in the name
::51::
Rs.250 Crores.
30. In
Kadakampally
respondents 6 to 25.
::52::
14.2.2013 & 10.4.2013 and before the Minister for Home dated
respondents 10, 13, 14 & 15, respondents 26 & 27, 28, 33, 35,
statement.
::53::
It is also reported that more than 150 families are residing in the
land who claim title as per the documents held by them and that
commission of any offence under the IPC and PC Act. All of them
::54::
and that the present claims are cooked up for political gains
receiver appointed by the court in the civil suit has already taken
the sharers and the remaining properties are under the process
were
investigated
by
Crime
Records
Bureau,
::55::
approach the civil court and establish their title over the
The said complaint was filed by some other persons who claim
::56::
15th respondent.
maintain
exchanged on the net work for one year and same needs to be
from the achieves they could retrieve and retain data base for a
of the order. It is stated that all the call details and all the short
message details without the text message are maintained for the
::57::
without any text of the message for the period of one year had
Court.
1.11.2012.
::58::
29.6.2005".
(Annexure XVII) as observed from the office copy of the Land Tax
documents reveals that the buyers were only the land brokers
::59::
item No.I; 45.00 cents in item No.II, 2.00 acres in item number
III and 15.00 cents in item number IV. It is found that the said
writing in the records do not tally with the handwriting of the then
::60::
B. Original Thandaper
holder
of 3587 was
Sri.Krishnapanicker,
S/o.Issakki
Chami
Panicker of
Thandaper Number.
::61::
At least for the last 72 years, Thandaper No. 3587 was not
created from 3587 is illegal and the action of the then Village
Copy
Cancellation of
investigating agency".
::62::
found more or less the same facts and recorded findings similar
No.19462/2013.
appropriate agency.
::63::
The
On a
They are
the Government.
::64::
Sri.P.K.Thomas.
He
was
appointed as receiver in
1274 and other survey numbers which form part of 45.54 acres.
The acquisition was initiated against the owners who are the
::65::
Ext.P47 and
None of the
compensation.
::66::
Number is inserted in the 3rd line from the bottom. From the
Information Act.
::67::
subsequently.
that the petitioner therein is not the land holder of the plaint
44. Learned
counsel
Koovakkara
::68::
from 28.5.1969.
According
in Ext.R15(b) is therefore
10, 13 and 14. It is also pointed out that in the Pauper Suit
and subsequently
as
::69::
for partition was also filed between the members of the family of
plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule items. Properties in dispute are also
Later the
seen that the said suit has been withdrawn as per the judgment
::70::
was allowed and a receiver was appointed for the schedule items
which are not in the possession of any of the parties to the suit.
There was no
occasion for
The order
Ext.R15(j).
::71::
O.S.No.85/1971
on
1097.
The learned
45(a).
::72::
Since the
mortgage. The two suits referred earlier were filed for partition
members of Kochu Pilla Moosa has got absolute title over the
::73::
the suit for partition and separate possession. Till this point of
properties never came into the hands of Kochu Pilla Moosa or his
the
after stating that such amounts are retained with Moosa Haji to
::74::
be paid to the executant as and when he asks for the same for
mortgage.
15th respondent that they are the title holders of the property by
::75::
in Thandaper No.8826 was false and tax for the year 1969 and
and Ext.P16 and P17 are the tax receipts produced by the 2nd
::76::
cannot take any further action in the matter. Copy of the said
::77::
lands had been recorded in the name of the petitioners for the
The 2nd
17th respondent. The report stating that the land was vested in
::78::
the Thandaper
::79::
fraudulent manipulations.
47(a).
petitioners pointed out that Exts.P3 & P4 are the copies of the
basic tax receipts in the name of the 1st petitioner & 2nd
basic tax receipts in the name of the 4th petitioner and 2nd
petitioner respectively.
::80::
fraud and forgery in this matter and the fact that the original
Thrikkakara as Ext.P52.
::81::
It is contended that
Exts.P35 & P53 shows that the said properties never belonged to
that in fact the reply issued by the Village Officer will show that
the decision to say that the petitioners' father did not have title
::82::
the learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that Ext.R8(2)
filed for arrears of pattam. The suit was dismissed against the
turn around and contend that they are the title holders of the
::83::
paragraph 20 of the writ petition that they did not seek to raise
47(b).
pandaravaka
pattom, pandaravaka
Sree Pandarakaryam
::84::
Elangalloor Swaroopam
No.7
contains no reference to
No.1064/1102 ME.
O.S.No.697/1959
::85::
evident from Exts.P2 and P74 and further shows that the
aforesaid two sale deed are the result of the fraud practiced by
that if the sale deeds are genuine they may have been with
having 232 cents and the petitioners are claiming title only in
::86::
had been wrongly received in 1969 & 1971 etc. is a false report
and the same was prepared behind the back of the petitioners
::87::
The
counsel for the petitioners Sri.Shenoy also pointed out that 17th
from the petitioners in 1969 and 71. It is also pointed out that
47(c).
::88::
25.2.2014.
The
In
::89::
the same.
The
::90::
land after receiving kychit from him. It is submitted that the 33rd
::91::
illegal influence of the 26th respondent and the money power and
::92::
respondents 1 to 4.
filed
The
complaint.
13,37,00,000/-.
The
::93::
and Abdul Majeed were only land brokers who would help Suhra
item No.II, 2.00 acres in item No.III and 15.00 cents in item
::94::
with PWD road frontage ` 4.94 Lakhs per Are and with
that there are 10 metre wide roads and 108 apartments were
The agreement
::95::
fixed for execution of the sale deed was 11 months. The other
The party respondents created the sale deeds in 2005 & 2006
and applied for mutation. They created the sale deed in favour
four person in 2005 and vide five sale deeds they purported to
aforesaid in 2005 & 2006 are registered in the SRO, Varkala and
of 5.50 acres and 7.35 acres before the SRO, Varkala and SRO,
Allegation of the
::96::
of the land Mafia gang lead by Salim Raj, respondent No.26, the
that Salim Raj, the prospective vendees and Dileep, who is the
days later, Salim Raj wanted another meeting and the place of
Thiruvananthapuram.
The said
the gang members told the complainant that they have already
obtained ownership over the land and there is no need for any
they know how to get the land for which they paid advance.
::97::
Kumar at Poojappura.
Salim Raj, Abdul Majeed, Dileep, Ashok Kumar and the power of
When the
The
Thiruvananthapuram.
other persons and no land comprised in the said survey numbers stand in the name of the petitioners as per the Village records and hence the Village Officer cannot receive land tax from the petitioners. W.P.(C).No.8720/2012 stands dismissed. It is clear from the circumstances that the attempt of the gang is to grab the properties on the strength of manipulated and false entries in the revenue records and to offer some amounts to the persons who are the owners of the land so as to get release of their right in their favour. It seems that the conduct of respondents 8 to 25 is to knock off the property for a small price by threatening the persons in possession of the property on the strength of falsified revenue records. 51. In the report of the Deputy Director, Vigilance, South Zone dated 1.7.2013 it is stated that there was an attempt to grab 45.54 acres of land worth crores of rupees, that about 200 families, who are the real owners of the property are unable to remit the land tax, that complaints will have to be investigated and strict actions shall also have to be taken against the officers who are responsible for the same. During June, 2013 and
continuously thereafter various newspapers and medias reported the attempt of land grabbing and the creation of fake title deeds by the Gunman of the Chief Minister, Salim Raj and his gang. Exts.P24 to P30 are the copies of the newspaper reports in Kadakampally case. It is reported that the former Gunman of the Chief Minister and his gang by using their influence and clout attempted to deprive the properties from the owners at Edappally and Kadakampally. It is reported that the forged
documents drawn up by revenue officials have lead to the Land Revenue Commissioner's decision and that this was made possible by the influence wielded by Salim Raj and his wife, who is employed in the office of the Land Revenue Commissioner. It is also reported that the Chief Minister's office was misused by Salim Raj and that the original documents in the Revenue Department were destroyed by the officials in the Village Office with the assistance of staffs of the District Collector's office. 52. The materials produced and examined would prima facie reveal involvement of officers of the highest level as well. Source of income for the purchase of vast extent of land which is
very valuable lying within the Corporation limits and the persons behind the purchase are areas to be investigated. Several crores of rupees are involved in the deal. The investigating agency will have to investigate and book the persons who are financing the deal. Fabrication of revenue records, commission of forgery, falsification and destruction of records and documents for the purpose of knocking off vast extent of property would prima facie reveal that criminal offences have been committed by persons wielding high influence in the administration of the State. It is not known till now for whose behalf and whose benefit the properties are attempted to be purchased from persons who are alleged to have no title to the property. In all probability the persons behind the screen are mighty 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 two writ petitions, party respondents and other big wigs, whose names have not so far come to lime light.
53. The learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C). No.19462/2013 submitted that in spite of various complaints namely, Exts.P31 to 34 lodged raising very serious allegations against the officials of the Revenue Department, Salim Raj the suspended Gunman of the Chief Minister, his wife and others, till date, no crime was 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 respondent had initiated vigilance enquiry in relation to the allegations raised in respect of 45.54 acres and the same is in full swing. 4th respondent
reported that at present more than 150 families are residing in the land who claim title as per documents held by them and that they have also paid land tax up to 2012-13. It is stated that inclusion of land in Thandaper No.3587 is a patent illegality. The 4th respondent also stated that the scope of vigilance enquiry is limited to the involvement of Government Officials into the illegal acts alleged to have been done by them to help the persons claiming to have title over the property. From the
registering cases or to investigate the very serious allegations raised in the complaint. 54. In the light of the statement of the 38th respondent that call details for one year period is only available, the Kerala Police may not be able to retrieve the voice records and tapes for the period beyond one year. It is pointed out that CBI alone can retrieve such records beyond the period of one year up to a period of three years to unearth the collusive affair, conspiracy, fraud and other offences committed alleged to have been taken place during 2011-13. 55. Petitioners contend in Kadakampally case that they are the co-owners of 12.27 acres of land in Sy.No.1279, 1280, 1281 to 1288 of Kadakampally Village. They obtained the
property as per the registered Otti Transfer Deed No.2882/1969 of SRO, Thiruvananthapuram. Their father, who purchased the jenmom right, had assigned the jenmom right to the petitioners. The properties were mutated to the name 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
assignment deed of the year 1960. Sale deed No.2019/1968 executed by the jenmies of the property in favour of K.P.Ramachandran Nair, who is the father of the petitioners is marked 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 by In
Sri.T.K.Thomas, receiver in O.S.No.85/1971, as Ext.P38. Ext.P22 report dated 1.7.2013, prepared by the Deputy
Collector, South Zone, Vigilance and in the report submitted by the Revenue Secretary, it is stated that the receiver does not have physical possession of the property in Kadakampally Village. From the materials on record it is seen that neither the receiver nor the legal heirs of Abdul Rehman Kunju ever 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.P22 report wherein it was reported that the direction in Ext.P10 judgment to give effect 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 of Travancore the disputed land belonged to the jenmies, M/s.Koovakkara Madom. They had created Otti
right in favour of joint family of one Kanakku Padmanabha Pillai and Madhavan Nair, Vaiyakalathu Veedu by way of Otti and Kuzhikkanam. The relevant pages of settlement register is
produced and marked as Ext.P5. Later, by virtue of partition deed No.2509/1101 ME of SRO, Thiruananthapuram, the lands along with Otti liability devolved upon Madhavan Nair. It is the case of the petitioners that rights in the property has been brought to sale in O.S.No.38/1120 on 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 through the 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 over the said property to the name of Vasudevan Pillai and Vasu Pillai.
Later,
jenmom
rights
have
been purchased
by
K.P.Ramachandran Nair, father of petitioners from the legal heirs of Narayana Potti Shambu Potti as per sale deed No.2019/1968 of SRO, Thiruvananthapuram marked as Ext.P36. It is submitted that the father of the petitioners 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 and the petitioners have purchased the Otti rights in the property from the aforesaid Vasudevan 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 and paying tax thereon in T.P.No.10150. None of the parties had approached any civil court till date for declaration of title and for related reliefs. After hearing both sides, I make it clear that this Court has not entered any finding regarding the title to the properties. Aggrieved party or parties are at liberty to approach the civil court to establish title over the properties, if so advised. 57. Crime No.1646/2013 registered by the Kalamassery Police Station was transferred for further investigation to the
CBCID vide order dated 5.10.2013 and is renumbered 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 was registered only on 17.8.13, i.e., after the filing of the writ petition and after the publication of newspaper and media reports continuously from the June, 2013 raising hue and cry on the attempts of land grabbing and creation of fake title deeds. On 18.8.13, the Superintendent of Police, Kalamassery Police Station recorded the statement of the 2nd petitioner in Edappally case. The 2nd petitioner named several person
including Salim Raj, the Gunman of the Chief Minister, his wife, who is working at the Revenue Commissionarate and several revenue officials. In Ext.P28 complaint dated 13.6.2013 lodged before the Home Minister, the 2nd petitioner named several persons including the gunman of the Chief Minister, Salim Raj, District Collector, Land Revenue Commissioner and several others. 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 & P29 complaints, the 2nd petitioner
named 12 persons including named Tahsildar, Additional Tahsildar, District Collector and Land Revenue Commissioner. In Ext.P30 complaint dated 21.6.2013 filed by the petitioners to the Chief Minister the very same names were repeated alleging that all of them are involved in the controversy. Besides these,
Ext.P31 complaint was also lodged before the Inspector General of Police, Kochi Range, Ernakulam dated 1.7.2013. On a perusal of the FIR registered by the Kalamassery Police Station and CBCID, it is seen that the case was registered against the Village Officer, Staff of Thrikkakara North Village Office and three private persons. Though repeatedly complaints have been
received by various authorities and in spite of recording of the statement of the petitioners it is seen that till date, apart from five persons, the police had not implicated any of the higher officials against whom specific allegations are made in all the complaints lodged before the Chief Minister, Home Minister, Inspector General of Police and others. Though serious
allegations are levelled against several persons in respect of a deal involving several crores of rupees, originally, the case was
investigated by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkakara for the period from 5.9.2013 till 9.10.2013. The crime was transferred to CBCID by order dated 5.10.2013 and the Commissioner of Police commenced investigation from 10.10.2013. The Assistant Commissioner of Police recorded the statement of the 2nd petitioner on 4.10.2013. The statement contains the details of the allegations of forgery, fraud, falsification of records and other criminal acts committed by named persons and others. So far no investigation has been directed as to who are the real persons behind the deal and as to for and on whose behalf the revenue officials are involved in the alleged conspiracy. Investigation will have to be directed as to the source of income or the persons who are behind the deal and regarding investment of several crores of rupees in connection with the purchase of land. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that on 17.8.2013, highly belatedly, the Deputy Commissioner of Police recorded the statement of the 1st petitioner, a pardanashin lady and a formal statement from the 2nd petitioner saying that it was for the purpose of forwarding a
report to the inspector General and that further statement would be recorded later. According to the petitioner, but, apparently this was only an eyewash based on the incomplete and vague statement recorded from the 1st petitioner, a totally useless and farcical FIR had been recorded, implicating only a few Village Officials and three among the party respondents. The other
accused, particularly respondents 2, 6 to 20, etc. are not added as accused even today. The counsel also pointed out that
instead of investigating the criminal offences in both cases including the allegation with regard to the offences of manipulation of official records, creation of false records and report and destruction of original records like thandaper No.8826, the police enquiry is being deliberately diverted to conduct an enquiry into the title of the petitioners viz-a-viz the title of respondents 8 to 13. The police has not taken any steps to question either the then Land Revenue Commissioner or the other officials involved, reported by the Principal Secretary to be involved in the incidents or the respondents 8 to 13, or to add any of them as accused in the crime, clearly evidencing that the
investigation is totally dis-satisfactory, deliberately misdirected and aimed at creating a clout, confusion and to 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 bothered even to place any requisition for seizure of the telephone records of the accused persons also. The writ petition itself was filed in Edappally case finding that no proper and fair investigation has been initiated by the police. The writ petition in Kadakampally 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 mass corruption and conspiracy involving higher officials and big wigs are brought to the notice of the police. The enquiry in Kadakampally case by the Vigilance Department is also highly belated only after the filing of the writ petitions. The public interest involved is evident from the fact that even the land which had been acquired by the Government for the purpose of widening of Aamiyazhanchan thodu having an extent of 2= acres of land in various survey numbers is also now included in the fraudulent thandaper
No.3587 proving a fraudulent attempt to knock off valuable properties belonging to the Irrigation Department (State of Kerala) also through such forgery and fabrication. The fact is that even though respondents 8 to 25 tried to take shelter behind a plea of civil dispute, there is no suit filed by them before any civil court against petitioners nor is any suit filed by petitioners against the respondents. The party respondents have not filed any suit for declaration, redemption of mortgage or recovery of possession before any court of law even today. 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 reservations stating only that the parties have decided to abide by an out of court settlement they had entered into even prior to the filing of the said suit. In the said suits, the petitioners or their predecessors are not parties. Thus, it is clear that till date no suit was however filed or pending for redemption of mortgage or for recovery of possession. Petitioners claim right over the
properties under assignees of legal heirs 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 interim directions issued by this Court. The reports of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau reveals the involvement of several persons in the alleged conspiracy and other criminal acts. The Vigilance enquiry Report also recommends a detailed investigation. On a perusal of the Case Diary of CBCID, EOW-II, Kottayam, it is seen that no progress has been made though they have re-numbered the crime and said to have started investigation on 10.10.2013. 59. The well founded apprehension expressed by the petitioners in both writ petitions is that at the instance of Salim Raj, the suspended Gunman of the Chief Minister, and at the intervention of the office of the Chief Minister, the official respondents were not taking any action in spite of the proven falsification and fabrication of records by some of the officers in the Revenue Department including respondents 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. It is highlighted that since there is
absolute inaction on the part of police officials in taking action on the complaints and representations made by the petitioners, no purpose will be served by waiting any longer and proper enquiry has to be conducted into the gross abuse of power, political connection and other extraneous influences involved in the case, petitioners have to approach this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India. 60. The learned counsel Sri.M.P.Ramanathan on behalf of the intending buyers fairly conceded that the so called buyers have no means to pay Rs.13.37 Crores agreed to be paid as consideration to the sellers. It is not known from where the source of income come and who are the big wigs who wanted to invest several crores of rupees in the deal. From the very facts and circumstances, it is not believable or conclude that the Gunman of the Chief Minister, who is only a police constable, will be able to invest so much of funds for purchase of the property. This is not a case where the properties attempted to be
purchased are with funds invested or to be invested by some persons having means. The materials in the case would prima facie show that the party respondents have created false documents, forged and falsified Thandaper of the properties, bribed, compelled and influenced officials and fabricated false documents in the name of certain persons to facilitate purchase of the property from such persons including persons who are not in possession and enjoyment of the property for the last several decades. It is evident from the circumstances that though the agreements for sale executed are for purchase of 12.27 acres out of 45.50 acres, it is a first step as there is the possibility of entering into more agreement for purchase of balance properties. It appears that there is widespread collusion and conspiracy among the party respondents and revenue officials to defeat the title of the petitioners so as to cause undue enrichment for party respondents and others through misuse and abuse of official position. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is every justification for the petitioners to come forward 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 highly prejudiced, that the investigation would not come to an end with proper findings and if the investigation is allowed to be carried out by them, investigation will be namesake and in that circumstances it would be fit and proper that the petitioners and
independent agency should look into the matter that would lend
principle of law that in a case where the police had not acted
::116::
independent agency.
the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view
that these are extra ordinary cases and that the petitioners are
::117::
State without the consent of that State will neither impinge upon
issues. The matter was discussed and principles laid down in the
the State Police, the court can also exercise its constitutional
::118::
Court and High Courts have not only the power and jurisdiction
passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-
powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles
::119::
SCC 582).
and others (2011(5) SCC 79) the Apex Court held that "if
in the facts of the said case that no matter how faithfully and
honestly the local police may carry out the investigation, the
::120::
them.
like CBI even when the charge sheet has been submitted.
::121::
GRP, Mathura
also two courts of enquiry was held by the Army officials and
they found that it was a case of suicide and hence the High Court
rejected the prayer for CBI enquiry. It is true that in that case
the Apex Court held that the remedy lies under Section 36 and
::122::
The Apex Court was of the opinion that High Court should not
the peculiar circumstance of that case the Apex Court held that
The
::123::
66(a).
"As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the
::124::
66(b).
Sri.S.Sreekumar.
report lodged by the two persons, the police officials did not
register the FIR and therefore, the petition was filed under Article
::125::
In
be adopted are under Section 190 r/w Section 200 Cr.P.C. The
present case.
office of the Chief Minister and other higher officials are involved
in the case, they will not get any justice from the Kerala Police
Cr.P.C will not serve ends of justice. The learned counsel are not
::126::
proper for this Court to apply the said principles to the facts of
fundamental rights.
the cases make it clear that the petitioners in both cases are
including CBCID and they press for granting their prayer for CBI
The involvement of
::127::
materials showing
them are even now included in the array of the accused. The
::128::
that it may bear credibility. This Court also felt that no matter
how faithfully and honestly the local police may carry out the
investigation to CBI.
70. The prima facie materials from the fact finding reports
::129::
have held multiple meetings with the land owners and had
the demands.
::130::
character.
Minister's Office.
::131::
investigation by CBI.
the revenue officials to hand over all the case records including
months from the date of taking over the investigation. The CBI
::132::