Allowed

Saidalikutty v. the Taluk Land Board Tirur

Kerala HC2 Feb 2011OP(C)/407/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court issued a writ directing the Taluk Land Board to dispose of a pending claim petition on merits after hearing the petitioner and stay execution of an order seeking possession of the disputed land until the petition is decided.

What did the court decide?

Taluk Land Board directed to dispose of Exhibit P1 on merits after hearing; possession of land claimed in Exhibit P1 stayed.

Saidalikutty Vs the Taluk Land Board Tirur — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2011 / 13TH MAGHA 1932

¶5

OP(C).No. 407 of 2011(O)

¶6

-----------------------SM.123/1977 OF TALUK LAND BOARD, TIRUR

¶7

PETITIONER (S):

¶8

¶9

SAIDALIKUTTY,S/O.T.P.MUHAMMED @ BAPPU PAIKKANNOOR PO, KUTTIPPURAM,TIRUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE TALUK LAND BOARD, TIRUR TIRUR PO, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 676 101.

¶14

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NADUVATTOM VILLAGE KUTTIPPURAM PANCHAYATH, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN 679 692.

¶15

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.B.RAMANAND

¶16

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

¶17

ON 02/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

K.T.SANKARAN, J.

¶19

O.P.(C).No.407 of 2011

¶20

Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2011

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The reliefs prayed for in the Original Petition filed by

¶23

the petitioner under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are the following :

¶24

“(a) Pass any appropriate order or direction directing the first respondent to dispose of the Ext.P1 claim petition on merits within such time as pleased by this Honourable court before executing Exhibit P3 order in S.M.123/77 before the Taluk Land Board, Tirur.

¶25

b) Pass any appropriate writ or direction directing the second respondent to receive basic tax to the property comprising in RS 401/2 in Naduvattom Village from the petitioner.

¶26

O.P.(C) No.407/2011

¶27

¶28

c) Pass any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue and the petitioner may pray from time to time.”

¶29

In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for

¶30

the petitioner submitted that at present he is not pressing relief No.(b). It is submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to raise that contention and claim that relief before the appropriate Forum at the appropriate stage. Accordingly, the Original Petition is being considered only in respect of relief No.(a).

¶31

The petitioner has filed Exhibit P1 claim petition dated 2.2.2009 in SM 123/77 on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Tirur. The final order passed by the Taluk Land Board in SM 123/77 is Exhibit P3 dated 27.5.1999. It is stated that the property in R.S.No.401/2 of Naduvattom Village was included in the Ceiling Case and possession of the same was

¶32

O.P.(C) No.407/2011

¶33

¶34

directed to be taken treating the same as excess land. According to the petitioner, he has title to 18.14 cents of land in R.S.No.401/2. The property in R.S.No.401/2 belonged to Thekke Pediakkal Kalathil Muhammed @ Bappu. It was leased to one Moorivalappil Bava in the year 1957. By the change of hands as per successive assignment deeds, the property in question was purchased by the petitioner as per Document No.1435 of 2006 of the Sub Registrar's Office, Kuttippuram and the petitioner is in possession of that property. It is also contended that the extent of 2.40 acres in R.S.No.401/2 was included in CR No.293/73/B of the Taluk Land Board, Tirur in which T.P.Muhammed @ Bappu, the father of the petitioner, was the assessee. It is submitted that as per Exhibit P2 order dated 9.7.1998 passed in that case, the extent of 2.40 acres in R.S.No.401/2 was deleted from the account of the declarant therein.

¶35

The grievance of the petitioner is that Exhibit P1

¶36

O.P.(C) No.407/2011

¶37

¶38

claim petition was not disposed of by the Taluk Land Board, but at the same time, possession was attempted to be taken from the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this Original Petition claiming relief No.(a) mentioned above.

¶39

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Taluk Land Board is bound to consider Exhibit P1 application under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act on the merits, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and any other affected party. It is also just and proper that the Taluk Land Board keeps in abeyance taking possession of the extent of the land claimed by the petitioner in Exhibit P1 claim petition till that petition is considered and disposed of on the merits.

¶40

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of as follows:

¶41

O.P.(C) No.407/2011

¶42

¶43

(i) The Taluk Land Board shall consider and dispose of Exhibit P1 claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 85(8) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act in accordance with law, after after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and any other affected party.

¶44

(ii) Till Exhibit P1 is disposed of, possession of the property claimed by the petitioner in Exhibit P1 claim petition shall not be taken possession of as excess land in SM 123/77 on the file of the Taluk Land Board, Tirur.

¶45

K.T.SANKARAN

¶46

JUDGE

¶47

csl

Saidalikutty v. the Taluk Land Board Tirur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saidalikutty v. the Taluk Land Board Tirur

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

Roy Kutty Vs State of Kerala and Another

Sakkeena M.K Vs U.A Mohan Das

Hamsa E Vs U.a.Mohan Das

Gracy Xavier Vs St.Mary Rubbers

Balakuttan Pillai Vs Manu Parthan

C.Varghese Mathai Vs Varghese C.Philipkutty & Others