Dismissed

Manuelsons Financial Enterprises Pvt.Ltd v. the Special Tahsildar

Kerala HC1 Jul 2010WP(C)/13583/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought relief regarding the time granted by the Special Deputy Collector for the petitioner to produce documents concerning compensation. The court allowed two weeks for document production and directed a final decision after two further weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to produce documents within two weeks; Special Deputy Collector to make final decision on disbursement within a further two weeks.

Manuelsons Financial Enterprises Pvt.Ltd Vs the Special… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2010 / 10TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13583 of 2010(W) -------------------------PETITIONER:

¶5

--------------MANUELSONS FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUNCIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR, KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR P.M. MANUEL, MANUELSONS FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUNCIPAL OFFICE ROAD, THRISSUR, KERALA STATE

¶6

BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR

¶7

RESPONDENT(S):

¶8

¶9

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, LA (N.H) NO.2, PALAKKAD.

¶10

THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LA N.H, PALAKKAD.

¶11

NARAYANI, W/O. LAKSHMANAN, THARAVEETIL HOUSE, PANNIANKARA, ALATHUR TALUK, VADAKKANCHERRY VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶12

T.R. LAKSHMANAN, S/O. RAMAN, THARAVEETIL HOUSE, PANNIANKARA, ALATHUR TALUK, VADAKKANCHERRY VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶13

ADDL.R5 :

¶14

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶15

(ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.06.2010 ON I.A.No.6998/10 IN W.P.(C)No.13583/10)

¶16

BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI FOR R1, R2 & R5 ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY FOR R3&4

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.13583/10

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXTS:

¶20

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.No.258/99 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, PALAKKAD.

¶21

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 29.3.1978 IN FAVOUF OF the 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE NO.LAC.57/09/VADAKKANCHERRY-1 DATED 29.3.10 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.3.2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.LAC 57/09/VADAKKANCHERRY -2 DATED 13.4.10 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

TRUE COPY

¶26

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.

¶27

------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.13583 of 2010

¶28

--------------------------------DATED THIS THE 1^st DAY OF JULY, 2010

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

In this Writ Petition the grievance raised by the petitioner is that the Special Deputy Collector, viz the 2^nd respondent, who has issued Exhibit P5 has granted only seven days for the petitioner to produce documents with regard to the claim if any in respect of the amount of compensation.

¶31

The petitioner claims to be the creditor to the 4^th respondent and another person, who is not a party to this Writ Petition. The petitioner has also filed a suit as O.S.No.258/99 before the Sub Court, Palakkad for recovery of money on the strength of a mortgage deed alleged to have been executed by the 4^th respondent as surety for the transaction. The suit happened to be dismissed for default and a petition for restoration was thereafter filed. The application for restoration was allowed on condition of payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to the 4^th respondent herein and the said condition could not be fulfilled by the petitioner. It is now submitted that a fresh petition has been filed by the petitioner before the said Court, which is

W.P.(C)No.13583/10

-2-

pending.

In the meanwhile the petitioner was served with Exhibit P3 notice by the Special Tahsildar requiring information as to whether any appeal is pending from the decree and judgment in O.S.No.258/99. It was also informed that if the petitioner does not give the information regarding that, compensation amount determined will be disbursed to the 3^rd respondent.

¶36

The 3^rd respondent is the wife of the 4^th respondent and all the rights of the 4^th respondent on the property is transferred to the wife and accordingly she is entitled to be paid the compensation now. Exhibit P4 is the request given by the petitioner seeking further time to produce the documents and Exhibit P5 is the reply giving seven days' time to produce the documents. According to the petitioner since the summer holidays have started by then, the petitioner requires some more time to produce the documents, as per Exhibit P4.

¶37

The 4^th respondent has filed a detailed counter

¶38

affidavit disputing the claim raised by the petitioner with regard to the share of compensation. The copy of the written statement has been produced as Exhibit R4(1), a true copy of the decree

¶39

W.P.(C)No.13583/10

¶40

-3-

¶41

has been produced as Exhibit R4(2) and the order passed in I.A.No.2177/07 in O.S.No.258/99 has been produced as Exhibit R4(3). It is submitted that the proceedings have been finalised under section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956 and what remains is only the disbursement of the amount. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the 4^th respondent that the petitioner is only trying to delay the proceedings on unjustifiable grounds. The 4^th respondent is disputing the transaction with the petitioner and it is submitted that there are no legal or valid grounds to support the claim raised by the petitioner.

¶42

What is involved is only an enquiry by the Special Deputy Collector evidently to ascertain whether the petitioner is having any right or interest, which can be recognised under the provisions of the National Highways Act. Now that the petitioner is called upon to produce documents if any and as the claim of the petitioner has not been finally determined by the Special Deputy Collector, it is only proper that some breathing time is given to the petitioner to produce whatever documents available with them.

¶43

W.P.(C)No.13583/10

¶44

-4-

¶45

Therefore the petitioner will produce the documents which it relies upon within a period of two weeks from today before the 2^nd respondent. The 2^nd respondent will consider the matter with notice to the petitioner and the 3^rd and 4^th respondents and a final decision will be taken within a further period of two weeks. Depending upon the outcome, the amount will be disbursed to the party concerned.

¶46

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶47

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.

¶48

dsn

Manuelsons Financial Enterprises Pvt.Ltd v. the Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manuelsons Financial Enterprises Pvt.Ltd v. the Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.K.Kesavan Vs Thomas

Thankamma @ Vilasini Vs G.K.Pillai

M.M.Varkey Vs Dr.P.Prabhakaran and Another

Anusree Akshay Vs N.Nagaraju, Regional Officer

K.K.Sasikala Vs P.K.Savithri & Ors.

Bijoy John George Vs the Pooyappally Grama Panchayat