Partly allowed

Kunjumon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Dec 2010WP(C)/5256/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought remedy for respondents' inaction on his applications for survey, demarcation, and mutation of purchased land after tax refusal. Court directed respondents to act on survey application within eight weeks and subsequently on mutation application upon its completion.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to take action on survey application within eight weeks and pass orders on mutation application thereafter.

Kunjumon Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 5256 of 2010(F)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

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

¶9

KUNJUMON, S/O. DANIEL, ALUVILA VEEDU, CHIRATTAKONAM, VETTIKAVAL VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

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

¶13

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. TAHSILDAR, PATHANAPURAM TALUK, PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶15

3. VILLAGE OFFICER, ALAYAMON VILLAGE, ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT.

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

prv.

¶19

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶20

W.P.(C) No. 5256 of 2010 F

¶21

Dated this the 14^th day of December, 2010

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Petitioner claims that in 1996, he purchased 37.5 cents of land in survey Nos.476/2/8/19, 476/2/9 and 475/9/1/1 of Alayamon village by sale deed No.365/1996 of the SRO, Anchal. According to the petitioner, the property was mutated in his name also. Petitioner submits that his prior owner was also paying tax on the property and that after purchasing the same, he also continued to pay tax till 2003. His grievance is that from 2003 onwards, respondents have refused to accept tax in respect of the property. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted Exts.P2 and P3 applications to respondents 2 and 3 for measuring and demarcating the property and for ordering mutation in his name. Order was not passed and that led the petitioner to file this writ petition.

¶24

In the counter affidavit filed, case set up by the

¶25

respondents appears to be that the petitioner does not have

¶26

W.P.(C) No.5256/10

¶27

: 2 :

¶28

possession over the property and that there are civil disputes pending. As far as the civil disputes mentioned are concerned, petitioner submits that O.S.No.47/97 filed by the original owner of the property has already been dismissed and that O.S.No.94/10 is a suit filed by the petitioner against the prior owner praying for a decree of injunction restraining him from trespassing into the 37.5 cents of the property. It is stated that the pendency of the suit can be no reason for refusing to act upon the applications made.

¶29

As already seen, the grievance of the petitioner is mainly regarding the inaction on the part of the respondents on Exts.P2 and P3. Ext.P2 is an application made by the petitioner for survey and demarcation of the property. The respondents have no case that the petitioner has not purchased the property. They have also no case that there is any court order restraining them from conducting the survey. If that be so, when Ext.P2 application was made by the petitioner, necessarily action ought to have been taken. In my view, the pendency of OS.94/10 filed by the petitioner is not a

¶30

W.P.(C) No.5256/10

¶31

: 3 :

¶32

justification for being inactive on Ext.P2 application. Therefore, there will be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to take necessary action on Ext.P2 application filed by the petitioner for survey and demarcation of the boundaries of the property purchased by him.

¶33

Once that process is completed and the property is identified, in the absence of any other order restraining them from considering Ext.P3, it is directed that necessary orders on Ext.P3 will also be passed.

¶34

Action on Ext.P2 shall be completed at any rate, within eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment and pending upon the outcome of Ext.P2, necessary action will be taken on Ext.P3 also. Needless to say that any such action shall be taken with notice to the parties affected by such orders.

¶35

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶36

Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶37

aks

¶38

// True Copy //

¶39

P.A. To Judge

Kunjumon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjumon 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Vijayakumar and Another Vs P.Jayakumar

Shameem K.T. Vs Mr.G.Kishore, Principal in Charge

Dr.Jamal N.P. Vs Director

K.v.Ambi Vs N.a.Mathew

Mr.K.N.Chandran Vs P.Marapandyan

S.Shibu Vs the Registrar Kerala University Tvm.