Disposed

M.P.Hameed v. the Dist. Collector, Idukki

Kerala HC16 Dec 2008WP(C)/35963/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the inaction of the Revenue Divisional Officer in passing revised orders following the quashing of a prior cancellation. The Court found merit in the delay claim and directed the officer to pass final orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki to pass final orders within six weeks from date of producing certified copy of this judgment.

M.P.Hameed Vs the Dist. Collector, Idukki — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH DECEMBER 2008 / 25TH AGRAHAYANA 1930

¶4

WP(C).No. 35963 of 2008(F)

PETITIONER(S):

M.P.HAMEED, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.PAREETH, MARVETTICKAL, KARIKKODU, THODUPUZHA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN SMT.LAKSHMI.N.KAIMAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

¶12

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.

¶13

THE SUB COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.

¶14

THE R.D.O, IDUKKI.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶16

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶17

BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN.

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶20

W.P.(C) No.35963 OF 2008

¶21

Dated this the 16^th December, 2008.

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Heard Sri.B.Renjith Marar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶24

The petitioner is the owner of a parcel of land approximately 93.5 cents in extent. His predecessor-in-interest had obtained permission from the Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki, under the provisions of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1957, to construct a commercial building in a portion of the said parcel of land. That permission was cancelled by Ext.P2 order dated 21.12.2006. By Ext.P3, the Sub Collector, Idukki, directed the petitioner and his predecessor-in-interest to restore the land in its original state. The petitioner challenged Exts.P2 and P3 in W.P.(C) No.37076 of 2007. By Ext.P7 judgment delivered on 26.2.2008, this Court quashed Ext.P2 and directed the Revenue Divisional officer to re-examine the matter. The petitioner's

¶25

W.P.(C) No.35963 of 2008

¶26

¶27

grievance is that notwithstanding the fact that the enquiry pursuant to Ext.P7 judgment was held and the parties were heard, till date, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki, has not passed orders in the matter. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki, to pass final orders in the matter within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶28

The pleadings and materials on record indicate

¶29

that Ext.P2 was quashed and the Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to reconsider the matter and pass revised orders. The petitioner's predecessor has sought permission to put up a commercial building in the lands belonging to him. The land was developed and made fit for such construction. The petitioner purchased the property thereafter. However, he could not proceed with the construction for the reason that Ext.P2 permission earlier granted was cancelled. By Ext.P7 judgment, Ext.P2 was quashed and the Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to re-consider the matter. Nearly 10 months have

¶30

W.P.(C) No.35963 of 2008

¶31

¶32

passed thereafter. Such being the situation, I find merit in the grievance voiced by the petitioner that the delay in passing revised orders will cause serious prejudice to him.

¶33

In these circumstances, I dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Idukki, to pass final orders, as directed by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment within a period of six weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment. The third respondent shall immediately after orders are passed in the matter communicate a copy thereof to the parties.

¶34

P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE

¶35

nj.

M.P.Hameed v. the Dist. Collector, Idukki

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Hameed v. the Dist. Collector, Idukki

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

Prof.K.M.Varghese Vs Sri.K.a.Hashim

V.I.Krishnan Thamban Vs the Director of Urban Affairs

M.S.Sajeev Kumar Vs State of Kerala and Others

Kuttan Nair Vs K.R.Muraleedharan and Another

Anandakumar.T.L. Vs K.S.E.Board

Ramaswamy Gounder Vs the Taluk Land Board and Others