Partly allowed

C.G.Raghunathan v. Taluk Land Board

Kerala HC19 Jun 2007CRP/1102/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a civil revision petition regarding land measurement claims and suo motu cases, set aside an impugned order and remanded the matter to the Taluk Land Board to pass fresh orders after considering the Land Tribunal's decisions, allowing the petitioners to produce evidence. The revision petition was allowed by way of remand with no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; Land Board directed to pass fresh orders after considering Land Tribunal decisions and allowing petitioners to produce evidence; CRP allowed by way of remand.

C.G.Raghunathan Vs Taluk Land Board — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2007 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1929

¶5

CRP.No. 1102 of 1999(H)

¶6

----------------------(AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 27.4.1999 IN CASE NO.M.3450 OF 1977 OF THE LAND BOARD, KANAYANNOOR)

¶7

REVN. PETITIONERS:

¶8

----------------------

¶9

1. C.G.RAGHUNATHAN S/o.GOVINDA RAO,

¶10

CHITTAYIL HOUSE, MARADU, THRIPUNITHURA.

¶11

2. C.G.SUSEELA, W/o. GANGADHARA RAO, KALLARACKAPARAMBIL, ELAMAKKARA.

¶12

3. C.G.SUNDARI D/o.GOVINDA RAO, CHITTAYIL HOUSE, MARADU, THRIPUNITHURA.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.V.J.JOHN SRI.K.RAVIKUMAR

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

----------------

¶16

1. TALUK LAND BOARD, KANAYANNOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

¶17

2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNOOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

¶19

THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,

¶20

SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶21

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JAMES JOHN AMBOOKKAN

¶22

THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

C.R.P.NO.1102/1999 :2:

¶24

ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.2285 OF 1999 IN C.R.P.NO.1102 OF 1999

¶25

DISMISSED

¶26

19/6/2007 Sd/-PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE.

¶27

TRUE COPY

¶28

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶29

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

¶30

C.R.P. No. 1102 OF 1999

¶31

Dated this the 19^th day of June, 2007

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Mr.K.Ravikumar and Mr.V.J.John appearing for the petitioners submit that in the impugned order of the Land Board itself it is stated that there are 16 varam claimants (varandars) on the property in question and their claims are under consideration by the Land Tribunal. Learned counsel further submitted that 16 suo motu cases were registered on the basis of those claims, viz. SMP Nos.51/94, SMP 52/94, SMP 55/94, SMP 56/94, SMP 58/94, SMP 60/94, SMP 62/94, SMP 63/94, SMP 71/94, SMP 72/94, SMP 74/94, SMP 77/94, SMP 78/94, SMP 80/94, SMP 83/94 & SMP 86/94) and that the enquiry into those cases is practically completed over. According to him a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and D form has been issued already. What remains is the actual issuance of pattayams which is delayed due to administrative reasons in the Tribunal.

¶34

I have heard the submissions of Sri.Shyson P.Manguzha, learned Government Pleader also. Having regard to the rival submissions, I am of the view that if the Land Tribunal has finalized the proceedings initiated in respect of the varam claims in favour of the claimants as

¶35

¶36

CRP No.1102 OF 1999

¶37

submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is only appropriate that the Land Board passes fresh orders on the basis of the orders of the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and direct the Taluk Land Board, Kanayannoor to pass fresh orders in TLB case No.3460 of 1977 after giving opportunity to the petitioners for producing evidence regarding the decision taken by the Land Tribunal in the suo motu cases referred to above. The Board will have due regard to the decision taken by the Land Tribunal on the varam claims and pass fresh orders.

¶38

The CRP is allowed by way of remand. No costs.

¶39

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶40

btt

¶41

CRP No.1102 OF 1999

¶42

C.G.Raghunathan v. Taluk Land Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.G.Raghunathan v. Taluk Land Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sasikala.G.I. Vs State of Kerala

Y2RAYANAN Vs Kalyani

M/S.Motor & General Finance Ltd. Vs Mujeeb Rahiman

Haridas Vs State

K.T.Hassan Vs Kasim Kunju Ismail Pillai

G. Ramachandran Nair Vs P.N. Janardanan Nair