Allowed

Shibu P.M. v. the Village Officer

Kerala HC9 Feb 2011WP(C)/2582/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the refusal of the Village Officer to accept an application for a location sketch and possession certificate. The Court held that the purpose of the application (potential mining) does not justify refusal.

What did the court decide?

It is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to submit his application for possession certificate and location sketch which shall be accepted and considered.

Shibu P.M. Vs the Village Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932

¶4

WP(C).No. 2582 of 2011(W) --------------------------------------

¶5

PETITIONERS:

¶6

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

¶7

1. SHIBU P.M., PULICKACHALIL HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM-683 587.

¶8

2. HAFEEZ ALI, ANDETH HOUSE, KALADY, ALUVA.

¶9

3. SENTHIL, KUZHIYAMVELIL HOUSE, OKKAL, KALADY.

¶10

4. BICIMON, KOKKATHARA HOUSE, KALADY, ALUVA.

¶11

5. SHAJI P.B., POOKKOTTIL HOUSE, ELAVALLI, CHAVAKKAD.

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY MATHEW, SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU, SRI.B.PREMNATH (E).

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

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

¶15

1. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE, ALUVA TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683 587.

¶16

2. THE DISTRICT GEOLOGIST, MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD682 030.

¶17

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶18

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. P. NARAYANAN.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/02/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

prv.

¶21

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶22

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

¶23

W.P.(C) NO.2582 OF 2011(W)

¶24

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

¶25

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2011

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Petitioners claim to be the owners in possession of 99.96 ares of land in R.S. No.220/4 of block No.22 of Malayattur village. According to the petitioners they made Ext.P9 application for a location sketch and a possession certificate. It is stated that despite having submitted the application first respondent declined to accept the application. It is with this grievance the writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to accept the application and take appropriate action in the matter. Learned Government Pleader has obtained instructions in the matter. According to the Government Pleader, following the judgment of this court in WP(c).No.9605/2008, when consequential proceedings were initiated, that Village Officers were instructed not to entertain application in the nature of Ext.P9 which are made for the purpose of obtaining mining permits. It is therefore that the Village Officer declined to accept the application made by the petitioners on 23.12.2010.

¶28

WPC.No. 2582/2011

¶29

:2 :

¶30

As far as the Village Officer is concerned, irrespective of the purpose for which the location sketch and possession certificate is sought for, the application is only for issuing the same. Once possession certificate and location sketch is obtained, if at all the same is for the purpose of obtaining mining permits, it for the applicant to make applications for the same and it is for the appropriate authority to decide whether such application for mining permit is to be granted or not. Therefore, the fact that the ultimate purpose of the application is to obtain a mining permit does not in any manner justify the stand of the Revenue authorities that they will not accept the application in the nature of one filed by the petitioner.

¶31

Consistent with the view taken by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment in WP(c).No.1172/2011, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to submit his application for possession certificate and location sketch, in which event, the same shall be accepted and considered by the first respondent and orders thereon will be passed in accordance with law.

¶32

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶33

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶34

vi/

Shibu P.M. v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shibu P.M. v. the Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.G.Muraleedharan Pillai & Others Vs the Secretary to Govt & Others

Marzook.P.M Vs Passport Officer and Another

P.O.Thomas and Another Vs Land Revenue Commissioner and Others

George Joseph Vs the Vicar, Mar Sleeba Church & Ors.

K.K.Abdul Jaleel Vs Kerala State Wakf Board

Sujith Nair Vs the Cochin University of Science and Tec