Kerala High Court rules that spouses cannot file writ petitions on behalf of each other without a power of attorney, clarifying locus standi in property disputes.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KERALA: In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a wife seeking rectification of her property’s land classification. The Court held that she lacked the locus standi to maintain the proceedings without authorization from her husband, the actual landowner.
Case Background
The dispute arose over land classified as ‘wet land’ in the official data bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. The petitioner claimed the land was ‘dry land’ and sought its reclassification.
Her husband, along with co-owners, had earlier submitted an application under Rule 4(4d) of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, to correct the classification. Due to delays, he filed a writ petition in 2024. The Court then directed the authorities to consider the application, but it was ultimately rejected by the Sub Collector.
The wife, claiming she was managing the property while her husband was abroad, filed a fresh writ petition to challenge the decision.
Court’s Observations
A Bench led by Justice C.S. Dias emphasized that:
- Non-party spouses cannot file writ petitions on behalf of their spouses without a duly executed power of attorney.
- Section 120 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which allows a spouse to be a competent witness, does not confer the right to institute legal proceedings in place of the other spouse.
- Writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 must be filed by the party concerned or their duly authorised advocate, supported by an affidavit sworn by the party.
- Under Order III of the CPC, only recognized agents, including those holding powers of attorney, can act on behalf of litigants.
Justice Dias noted:
“The present writ petition is filed as though the petitioner is the owner of the estate. Apart from a bald assertion that the petitioner is managing the property on account of her husband’s absence, there is no material conferring authority on her.”
The Court also cited precedents, including Calcutta Gas Co. v. State of West Bengal and Charanjit Lal Chowdhary v. Union of India, affirming that rights enforceable under Article 226 must typically be those of the petitioner, except in exceptional cases like habeas corpus.
The writ petition was dismissed. However, the Court clarified that the landowners remain free to file a fresh petition or execute a power of attorney authorizing the wife to institute proceedings.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates C.M. Mohammed Iquabal, P. Abdul Nishad, Istitinaf Abdullah, Thasneem A.P., Dhilna Dileep, Surya S.R., Arshid M.S.
Respondents: Advocates Deepa V. (GP), Vishnu S. Chempazhanthiyil (SC)
Case Title:
Shareefa v. The Sub Collector Tirur
WP(C) NO. 2862 OF 2025
Read Judgment:
