Remanded

A.v.Veeraraghava Iyer v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Oct 2008OP/9717/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought assignment of leased government land despite respondent inaction. Pending rival claim case was disposed of. Court directed authorities to finalize assignment after hearing all parties within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondents to see that final orders are passed on the application for assignment after hearing all parties including the petitioner in the other pending case, within three months.

A.v.Veeraraghava Iyer Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2008 / 28TH ASWINA 1930

¶5

OP.No. 9717 of 1994(F)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

--------------A.V. VEERARAGHAVA IYER & CO., SABHAVATHY KOIL STREET OF CHALAI, TRIVANDRUM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, R. VEERA RAGHAVAN.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.KUNNATHUKAL V.SUKUMARAN NAIR

¶10

SRI. EASOW MATHEW.

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESNTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, TRIVANDRUM.

¶15

3. TAHSILDAR (ASSIGNMENT), TALUK OFFICE, TRIVANDRUM.

¶16

ADV. GOVT.PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU.

¶17

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

OP.No. 9717 of 1994

¶19

EXT.P1: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DTD 7.2.94. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITONER DTD 1.6.84. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 13.8.84 ISSUED BY R3. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.RS 9379/84, DT 5.9.84. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.LTP/48257/84, DT. 26.6.85. EXT.P5(a): COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 24.6.85. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.G1-6251/85, DTD 3.5.85. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE LETTER NO.LA2-421/84, DTD. 1.11.91. EXT.P8; COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITONER DATED 14.10.91.

¶20

TRUE COPY

¶21

PA TO JUDGE.

¶22

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶23

O.P.No. 9717 OF 1994

¶24

Dated this the 20^th day of October, 2008

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

The petitioner claims to be in possession of certain

¶27

Government land, in respect of which the predecessors-ininterest of the petitioner obtained lease from the Government. According to the petitioner, the petitioner got assignment of the lease from the predecessors-in-interest and the petitioner has been paying lease rent in respect of the same. The petitioner has applied for assignment of the land on the ground that the petitioner needs land for beneficial enjoyment of their other lands. Although all authorities have granted No Objection Certificate in the matter of assignment of land to the petitioner, the respondents are not taking steps to assign the land to the petitioner, is the grievance raised in the original petition. The petitioner, therefore, seeks the following reliefs:

¶28

“(a) a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to assign 1.20 cents of land in Sy.No.2444/40 of Thycaud village with

¶29

O.P.No.9717/94

¶30

¶31

the building in favour of the petitioner disposing Ext.P2 application, as proposed in Ext.P7 of the 3rd respondent.

¶32

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction directing the 1st respondent to dispose of Ext.P8 representation”.

¶33

At the time of filing of the original petition, another original petition namely, O.P.No.8410/1990, in respect of the same subject matter was pending before this Court, filed by a rival claimant. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, that original petition has been disposed of directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the matter.

¶34

Learned Government Pleader submits that the difficulty in dealing with the application of the petitioner was pendency of that original petition. Now that, that original petition has been disposed of, there cannot be any hindrance for finalising the proceedings in respect of the petitioner either way.

¶35

Accordingly, this original petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to see that final orders are passed on application for assignment submitted by the petitioner, after hearing all parties including the petitioner in

¶36

O.P.No.9717/94

¶37

¶38

O.P.No.8410/1990, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶40

Acd

A.v.Veeraraghava Iyer v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.v.Veeraraghava Iyer v. State of Kerala

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

V.K.Uthaman Pillai Vs Shri.T.P. Senkumar, IPS

T.K..Anandakuttan Vs the Institute of Human Resources Devlopm

Siraj Daily Vs Press Council of India

A.Vittala Pai Vs the Manager, S.D.College

B.Binu Vs Union of India

M/S.K & T Agro Mills Vs Kseb