Disposed

A.K.Pareed v. Tahsildar,Mukundapuram Taluk & Others

Kerala HC16 Jan 2008WP(C)/208/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a suspended Village Officer challenging orders of suspension and refusal to revoke it up to the District Collector. The Court directed the Commissioner of Land Revenue to decide on the pending appeal for revocation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Third respondent directed to dispose of the petitioner's appeal for revocation of suspension within six weeks of receiving the judgment copy.

A.K.Pareed Vs Tahsildar,Mukundapuram Taluk… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 208 of 2008(Y)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

PAREED.A.K., VILLAGE OFFICER (UNDER SUSPENSION), VADAKKUMKARA VILLAGE, RESIDING AT ALANGATTU HOUSE, MALA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM.

¶14

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.

¶15

3. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT., SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

Kss

V.GIRI, J

W.P.(C).208/2008

Dated this the 16^th day of January, 2008

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P7 and P9 orders. Petitioner was placed under suspension by Ext.P7 and by Ext.P9, District Collector decided to continue the suspension, rejecting the application for revocation.

¶25

Subsequently, petitioner has preferred an appeal, Ext.P10, before the Commissioner of Land Revenue. Detailed contentions have been taken up therein. Apparently, according to the petitioner, the decision to provisionally accept the basic tax in relation to the land regarding which there is a dispute on title, was done in the course of discharge of duties by the petitioner as Village Officer. It is the further contention of the petitioner that he had already written to the Tahasildar seeking clarification as to course of action to be adopted and it is because of delay in receiving instructions from

¶26

W.P.(C).208/2008

¶27

¶28

the Tahasildar that he had accepted the basic tax, on a provisional basis.

¶29

In my view, Commissioner of Land Revenue is to bestow serious consideration on the grounds raised by the petitioner in Ext.P10.

¶30

In the result, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to take a decision on Ext.P10 treating the same as petitioner's request for revocation for suspension, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner.

¶31

V.GIRI, Judge

¶32

mrcs

A.K.Pareed v. Tahsildar,Mukundapuram Taluk & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.K.Pareed v. Tahsildar,Mukundapuram Taluk & Others

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

Devakumar Vs Kerala Public Service Commission

Vijayakumar & Another Vs J.Sathyadas & Others

Sunil Kumar.K.S. Vs Chief General Manager, Hoc Ltd.

C.Kunjamma Vs State of Kerala

V.S.Venugopal Vs the Chief Judicial Magistrate

Lathika.L. Vs State of Kerala