‘Unfair litigation': HC slaps fine on state govt

Time of India

2 days ago

Kochi: HC has imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on the state govt while dismissing its appeals against single bench orders directing correction of land status in the revenue records, holding that the state had engaged in unfair litigation.
A bench of Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and P M Manoj criticised the state govt for attempting to harass the petitioner, Mananchira Township Complex Pvt Ltd, through unnecessary litigation instead of complying with the single bench's order. The court directed that the amount be paid to the petitioner within a week and clarified that the state is at liberty to recover it from the tahsildar concerned, if it finds him responsible for the cost order.
In 2020, the petitioner had approached the HC seeking directions to correct the classification of its land in Marathakkara village, Thrissur, shown as paddy land despite having been reclaimed long before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act came into force. The single bench ordered its reclassification as purayidam/dry land. However, the tahsildar (LR) allegedly reclassified the land as 'converted homestead', prompting another round of litigation.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around
Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List
Undo
In 2024, the court again directed the tahsildar to pass a fresh order based on the land being assessed as purayidam/dry land, but it was informed that the tahsildar issued an order in blatant violation of this direction.
Meanwhile, the tahsildar and the state govt filed review petitions against the single bench's orders, which were also dismissed, leading to the present appeals.
While rejecting the appeals, the division bench noted that the state had chosen an unfair path to harass a citizen through prolonged litigation, pointing out that its earlier directions were not followed for almost four years. Even after a second single judge reiterated those directions, the tahsildar failed to comply. The court remarked that the conduct of the state in pursuing this litigation "smacks of unreasonableness and unfairness," and held that it must be "put to terms".