RDO ഉത്തരവ്
നടപ്പാക്കാത്ത മീനച്ചിൽ LR തഹസീൽദാർക്കെതിരേ ഫയൽ ചെയ്ത ക്രിമിനൽ കേസ്.
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, PALA
Crl.M.P No. Of 2025
Petitioner:
Shan K.J., aged 41
S/o Joshy, Kadambuthara House,
Perumbaikad Village,
S.H. Mount P.O.Kottayam – 686006.
Respondent:
Smt. Seema Joseph, Aged 53 D/o Joseph,
W/o Jojo Abraham, House number 2/1,
Njayarkulam House, Teekoy Post, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam.
(Presently serving as Tahsildar (LR), Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam - 686575)
PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED UNDER SECTION 210 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 198 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023
1.The complainant respectfully submits this private complaint against the respondent, a public servant who, in a flagrant abuse of her official position as Tahsildar (LR), Meenachil Taluk, has deliberately and with malafide intent disobeyed a binding quasi-judicial order from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala, knowingly violated her mandatory statutory duty under Rule 22 of the Kerala Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, thereby causing injury and injustice to the lawful owners of the property
2. It is submitted that this act of criminal disobedience was not a mere administrative oversight, but a calculated omission intended to provide administrative protection to the beneficiaries of a documented land fraud, thereby causing grave injury and injustice to the lawful owners of the property.
3. The complainant is the Power of Attorney holder of Sanjay Mitra and Sumitra Mitra, lawful owners of about 5 acres of land in Re-Survey No. 381, Ward 7, Teekoy Village, Kottayam District, by virtue of a civil decree passed in AS Nos. 24/2008, 25/2009, and 132/2014 by the Additional District Court, Pala.
4. It is submitted that the present complaint arises not from a simple administrative delay, but as the latest act of obstruction in a decades-long history of documented land fraud. In the civil proceedings (culminating in the judgment dated 26.03.2022 in A.S. No. 132/2014), the civil court has already established that the opposing party, Johnson Mathew, and his associates had "approached the Court with unclean hands" and "fraudulently manipulated" documents to create a false claim.
5. This fraud was further corroborated by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, South Central Zone, Ernakulam in his report dated 06.03.2025 (File No. DIGEKM/94/2024-D4), which found that "large-scale fraud had occurred" . The report confirmed that Johnson Mathew and others registered fraudulent sale deeds by illicitly altering the survey number from 2309/1 to 2270/1/4/5. Therefore, the respondent Smt. Seema Joseph, in her capacity as Tahsildar, is not merely delaying a routine mutation; she is actively providing administrative protection to the known beneficiaries of this fraud by deliberately and unlawfully delaying the mutation, thereby helping this land mafia.
6. It is further submitted that the mutation was pursued by the petitioners before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. By judgment in W.P.(C) No. 25712/2023, the Hon'ble Court directed the Tahsildar to decide the application. Subsequently, in R.P. No. 1210/2023, the Hon'ble Court expressly clarified that the mutation shall proceed and would merely be 'subject to the final result of RSA No. 597/2022' . This clarification from the High Court directly invalidates the very excuse of 'pendency' that the accused is now using to block the mutation.
7. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala, after detailed proceedings, issued Order No. RDOPLA/3544/2023-L1 dated 28.07.2025, directing the Tahasildar (LR), Meenachil Taluk, to mutate the property in the names of Sanjay Mitra and Sumitra Mitra. The said order was passed under the Kerala Land Revenue Act, 1963, and the Kerala Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, after considering both parties’ submissions. Accordingly, it is a quasi-judicial order, binding on subordinate revenue authorities, and the accused was legally bound to implement it without delay.
8. The said RDO order arose from long-pending proceedings originally initiated in File No. A-1732/2004, in which the then RDO had, as early as 28.11.2005, found clear irregularities in the land records but deferred final action owing to civil pendency.
9. In compliance with the RDO’s latest order, the Taluk Surveyor recently conducted the required sub-division survey and submitted her final report to the Tahasildar (LR). After receiving this report—when the mutation process was ready for completion—the respondent, Smt. Seema Joseph decided not to proceed further, citing the pendency of a revision petition (No. 6780/2025-R2) filed before the District Collector by Johnson Mathew.
10. It is pertinent to note that Smt. Seema Joseph maintains a close personal relationship with the said Johnson Mathew, who is also her immediate neighbour. This personal connection has evidently influenced her conduct, as all her actions in the present matter have favoured Johnson Mathew and caused undue hardship to the lawful owners.
11. The said justification is wholly untenable because no stay order has been issued by the District Collector or any other authority. The specific, mandatory direction of law which the accused has knowingly disobeyed is Rule 22 of the Kerala Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966. The said rule provides:
"As soon as orders are passed on a transfer of registry case, the Tahsildar shall cause the necessary entries to be made in the Thandaper accounts (Chitta) of the village. In the cases in which the decision is subsequently cancelled or altered in revision under Rule 19 or 20 the Tahsildar shall order the necessary corrections being made at once in the thandaper accounts (Chitta). A patta in the prescribed form under the signature of the Tahsildar, in accordance with the decision shall be issued to those who apply for it."
This rule is unambiguous. The word "shall" makes it a mandatory duty for the accused to act "as soon as orders are passed." The rule itself explicitly provides the procedure for a successful revision: a subsequent correction after the fact. It does not empower a subordinate officer like the accused to unilaterally stay her superior's quasi-judicial order. Her refusal is therefore a direct and wilful violation of this lawful direction
12. The complainant submits that the offence was committed when the mutation process reached its final stage, after the Taluk Surveyor’s sub-division report was received, and the accused intentionally stopped the process around 14.10.2025, knowing that such disobedience would cause serious injury to the lawful owners.
13. The conduct of the accused attracts Section 198 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which provides:
“Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.” By deliberately refusing to carry out the RDO’s quasi-judicial order and to comply with Rule 22 of the Kerala Transfer of Registry Rules, the accused has knowingly disobeyed a lawful direction of law, thereby causing injury to the complainant and his principals.
Prayer:
In the interest of justice, it is most humbly prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to:
I. Take cognizance of the offence committed by the accused under Section 198 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023;
II. Summon and try the accused in accordance with the law and Punish the accused as provided under Section 198 BNS; and
III. Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice.
Dated this the 11th day of November 2025.
Shan K.J.
List of Documents
Annexure A1: True copy of the Order in R.P. No. 1210/2023 issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
Annexure A2: True copy of the Judgment in W.P.(C) No. 25712/2023 issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala.
Annexure A3: True copy of the Judgment dated 26.03.2022, Issued by the Additional District Court, Pala
Annexure A4: True copy of the Order dated 28.11.2005 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala.
Annexure A5: True copy of the Order dated 28.07.2025 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala.
Annexure A6: True copy of the Power of Attorney
Annexure A7: True copy of report of the DIG of Registration dated 04.03.2025
I, Shan K.J., the petitioner herein, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 13 of the above petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief, and information.
Verified on this 11th day of November 2025. at Kottayam.
Shan K.J.
CMP No. Of 2025
Petitioner:
Shan K.J., aged 41 S/o Joshy, Kadambuthara House, Perumbaikad Village, S.H. Mount P.O.Kottayam – 686006.
Respondent:
Smt. Seema Joseph, Aged 53 D/o Joseph, W/o Jojo Abraham, House number 2/1, Njayarkulam House, Teekoy Post, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam Presently serving as Tahsildar (LR), Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam - 686575
AFFIDAVIT
I, Shan K.J., aged 41, S/o Joshy, residing at Kadambuthara House, Perumbaikad Village, S.H. Mount P.O., Kottayam – 686006, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows:
1. I am the complainant in the above petition. I am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of this case and am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. The accompanying private complaint has been drafted under my instructions. I have read and understood the contents of the said complaint in its entirety.
3. The respondent, Smt. Seema Joseph, has deliberately and without any lawful authority refused to implement the binding quasi-judicial order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Pala, dated 28.07.2025 (Order No. RDOPLA/3544/2023-L1).
4. The respondent's refusal is a direct violation of her mandatory duty under Rule 22 of the Kerala Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966, and is in wilful defiance of the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No. 25712/2023 and R.P. No. 1210/2023.
5. The respondent's stated excuse of a pending revision (No. 6780/2025-R2) is a malafide pretext, as no stay order has been issued by any competent authority.
6. The respondent maintains a close personal relationship with the opposing party, Johnson Mathew, who is her immediate neighbour, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and collusion.
7. The respondent’s deliberate inaction is providing administrative protection to the beneficiaries of a documented land fraud, which has been confirmed by the judgment of the Additional District Court, Pala, and a report from the DIG of Registration.
8. I state that all the averments made and facts stated in the accompanying complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.
9. I submit that this is a fit case for this Hon'ble Court to take cognizance of the offence under Section 198 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and proceed against the accused in accordance with the law.
All the facts stated above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Dated this the 11th day of November 2025
Shan K.J.
Solemnly affirmed and signed before me by the deponent who is personally known to me, on the 11th day of November 2025, at Kottayam.
Advocate
Comments
Post a Comment