Kerala High Court Imposes Costs On State In Land Classification Case, Takes Exception To 'Unfair' Litigation

In a notable judgment, the Kerala High Court dismissed two writ appeals filed by the State and revenue authorities, imposing costs of Rs.25,000/- on them for what the Court described as unreasonable and unfair litigation tactics. The case, heard by Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice P.M. Manoj, arose from a dispute over the classification of land owned by Mananchira Township Complex Pvt. Ltd. The dispute began when Mananchira Township Complex Pvt. Ltd., represented by its Project Manager Joseph Mariadas, approached the High Court seeking correction of revenue records to reflect its land as purayidom (dry land). Although the land was originally classified as paddy land, it had been converted before the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, after securing necessary permissions under the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967.A Single Judge of the High Court, relying on earlier decisions including Renji K Paul v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2019 (2) KLT 262] and Ipe Varghese v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2020 (5) KLT 403], had directed the revenue authorities to reassess the land and correct the classification accordingly.However, instead of reclassifying the land as purayidom as directed, the Tahsildar passed an order on 18 March 2021, classifying it as “converted homestead,” ignoring the Court's clear and binding order.The company was then forced to approach the High Court again through another writ petition, WP(C) No.1397/2024, where yet another Single Judge found that the Tahsildar had acted in defiance of the earlier order. The Judge termed the Tahsildar's actions as “mischievous” and directed that the land be reassessed strictly as purayidom/dry land. Despite this, the Tahsildar reportedly passed yet another order on 11 June 2024, allegedly ignoring the Court's clear directions, prompting the company to initiate contempt proceedings.Instead of complying with the directions, the State and revenue authorities filed belated review petitions challenging the original and subsequent judgments. These review petitions (RP No.660/2024 and RP No.705/2024) were dismissed by Single Judges on the grounds of delay and lack of merit. The State then filed writ appeals challenging these dismissals, which were heard by the Division Bench. The Division Bench, while dismissing the writ appeals, expressed strong disapproval of the State's conduct. “The State must realise that they do not stand in a privileged position vis-a-vis a citizen when it comes to matters of litigation and the procedures to be followed while pursuing the same. On the contrary, their actions in this regard must be informed by fairness and reasonableness. The actions of the State in the pursuit of this litigation smacks of unreasonable and unfairness for which they must necessarily be put to terms.” The Bench emphasised that the State does not enjoy any special privilege over citizens in litigation and is bound by the same principles of fairness and reasonableness. The High Court not only dismissed the appeals but also imposed costs of Rs. 25,000/- on the State, ordering that the amount be paid to the private company within three weeks. The Court also allowed the State to recover this amount from the concerned Tahsildar if it determined that he was responsible for the delay or non-compliance.Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Special Government Pleader Sri. S. RenjithCounsel for the Respondents: Adv. Sri.Binoy VasudevanCase No: WA No. 1154 OF 2025 and WA NO. 1170 OF 2025Case Title: State of Kerala V. Mananchira Township Complex Pvt.Ltd. and Connected CaseCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 319Click Here To Read/ Download Order

Kerala High Court Imposes Costs On State In Land Classification Case, Takes Exception To 'Unfair' Litigation

Rizmi Lia

Tags