Allowed

Omana v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

Kerala HC1 Mar 2010WP(C)/1813/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioners, legal representatives of the deceased landowner, sought direction to Revenue authorities to execute an Order for resumption of land. The Court directed the Tahsildar to execute the order within five months after hearing the parties.

What did the court decide?

The Additional Tahsildar was directed to take steps to execute the resumption order in O.A.No.209/75 and E.P.No.1/89 within five months from the date of receipt of this judgment.

Omana Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam — 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

MONDAY, THE 1ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH PHALGUNA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 1813 of 2009(N)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

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

¶9

1. OMANA, WIFE OF PRABHAKARA PANICKER, MADATHIPARAMBIL, KAITHARAM KARA, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, PARUR TALUK.

¶10

2. GOPI P.PANICKER, SON OF PRABHAKARA PANICKER, MADATHIPARAMBIL, KAITHARAM KARA, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, PARUR TALUK.

¶11

3. MANOJ M. PANICKER, SON OF PRABHAKARA PANICKER, MADATHIPARAMBIl, KAITHARAM KARA, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE PARUR TALUK.

¶12

4. LEELA P.PANICKER, DAUGHTER OF PRABHAKARA PANICKER, MADATHIPARMBIL, KAITHARAM KARA, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE,PARUR TALUK.

¶13

BY ADVS. MR.T.K.VENUGOPALAN, MR.SHIBU JOSEPH.

¶14

RESPONDENTS:

¶15

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

¶16

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD.

¶17

2. DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR) ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, KOCHI -31.

¶18

3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSLDAR, N.PARAVUR.

¶19

4. SREEDHARAN, SON OF BALAKRISHNAN, KANATTAMPILLIL (KARADIPARAMBI), KAITHARAM KARA, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE, PARUR TALUK.

¶20

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR. P.N. SANTHOSH, R4 BY ADV. MR.MATHEW ABRAHAM.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/03/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(C). NO.1813/2009-N:

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶25

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN CRP.108/94 ON 23/05/05.

¶26

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE PETITION DTD. 07/12/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR) ALAPPUZHA.

¶27

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 01/04/08 IN W.P.(C).NO.10998/08.

¶28

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 19/07/08 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶29

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 29/10/08 SENT BY THE R.3. TO THE R.1.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶35

W.P.(C). No.1813/2009-N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶36

Dated this the 1^st day of March, 2010

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The main prayer in the writ petition is for a direction

¶39

to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to execute the order in O.A.No.209/75 by granting the prayer in E.P.No.1/89.

¶40

The petitioners are the legal representatives of deceased Prabhakara Panicker who had filed O.A.No.185/70 along with his brother under Section 17 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act before the Munsiff's Land Tribunal, Ernakulam which was mainly for resumption of the property from the tenant. The matter was transferred to the Special Deputy Collector, Land Tribunal, Alappuzha and was renumbered as O.A.No.209/75. The application was allowed by the Land Tribunal ordering resumption of one half of the property in Survey Nos.212/13 and 212/14 of Kottuvally Village, Parur Taluk from the tenant. Execution Petition No.1/89 filed for recovery of the property was allowed on the basis of the report and plan submitted by the Commissioner, Ext.C1, by which 30 cents in Survey No.212/3 and 33.250 cents in Survey No.212/14 of Kottuvally Village was allowed to be taken possession of.

¶41

The third respondent who was objecting to the same filed LRAS No.26/92 before the Allellate Authority (Land

¶42

W.P.(C). No.1813/2009

¶43

-:2:-

¶44

Reforms), Ernakulam and the same was dismissed. C.R.P.No.108/94 filed against the same before this Court was also dismissed as per Ext.P1. The fourth respondent herein is the petitioner in the C.R.P.

¶45

Since the property is situated in Kottuvally Village in Paravur Taluk, the second petitioner filed an application to send back the case to the Deputy Collector (LR), Ernakulam as per Ext.P2. Seeking for appropriate directions in the matter, he filed W.P.(C).No.10999/2008 before this Court which was disposed of by Ext.P3 Judgment. Thereafter, in terms of the directions issued therein, the District Collector, Alappuzha by a letter dated 22/07/2008 sent the records to the District Collector, Ernakulam who in turn by letter dated 29/07/2008 forwarded the entire files to the Tahsildar, North Paravur to take necessary steps to execute the order in E.P.No.1/89 in O.A.No.209/75. Ext.P4 is the copy of the said letter.

¶46

Even after conducting a visit by the Tahsildar, a further clarification was sought for as per Ext.P5 from the District Collector. It is the case of the petitioners that attempt is to protect the fourth respondent who is only a trespasser and who has illegally put up a shed there and this cannot be justified according to the learned counsel

¶47

W.P.(C). No.1813/2009

¶48

-:3:-

¶49

for the petitioners. All his objections have been overruled already in the previous proceedings.

¶50

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶51

the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents. There cannot be any dispute that the matter has reached finality going by Ext.P1 Judgment of this Court in C.R.P.No.108/1994. Therefore, the matter has to be proceeded with in execution. It is upto the Tahsildar to proceed with the steps in execution and take appropriate decision in accordance with law and the directions sought for from the District Collector therefore cannot be supported. He will have to take an independent decision in the matter as per law, and in the light of the orders passed by various authorities and by this Court in the C.R.P.

¶52

Therefore, there will be a direction to the third respondent herein to take all steps to execute the order in O.A.No.209/75 and in E.P.No.1/89 within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after hearing the petitioners and the fourth respondent.

¶53

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶54

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶55

Omana v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Omana v. the District Collector, Ernakulam

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

M.M.Kurian Vs Sri.T.Balakrishnan

V.Vijayan Menon Vs the Dist. Collector, Thrissur & Others

K.K.Hassan and Another Vs Union of India & Others

University of Calicut Vs Misha K. & Others

G.O.Devassikutty Vs S.B.T. and Another

Sankunthala and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others