Allowed

K.Sethumadhavan v. Dist.Collector

Kerala HC6 Dec 2011WP(C)/33187/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the petitioner challenged the non-issuance of a purchase certificate despite an 1977 assignment order and payment of dues. The court rejected the respondents' claim of misplaced files as unacceptable and directed the second respondent to retrieve the files and issue the certificate within three months of producing a copy of this judgment.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to retrieve the file and issue the purchase certificate within three months of producing a copy of this judgment.

K.Sethumadhavan Vs Dist.Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 6TH DECEMBER 2011 / 15TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 33187 of 2005(A) -------------------------------------

¶3

PETITIONER(S): ----------------------

¶4

K.SETHUMADHAVAN,S/O.C.SEKHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT KOZHITHODI HOUSE, VANIYAMPARA P.O., THRISSUR-680 652.

¶5

BY ADVS. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.SREEKANTH.K.R SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL SRI.CHITAMBARESH

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

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

¶8

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.

¶9

*2. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR TALUK,PALAKKAD.

¶10

THE CAUSE TITLE IS CORRECTED AS;

¶11

*** TAHSILDAR, THRISSUR, INSTEAD OF THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD.**

¶12

*** AS PER ORDER DATED 06/12/11 IN I.A. NO.17777/05.**

¶13

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PEECHI, THRISSUR.

¶14

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.A.SANGEETHA.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WPC 33187 OF 2005

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF ASSIGNMENT ON REGISTRY 31.10.1977

¶20

P2: COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT.22.3.2004

¶21

P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1^st RESPONDENT DT.24.9.2004

¶22

P4: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2^nd RESPONDENT DT. 9.12.2004

¶23

P5: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2^nd RESPONDENT DT. 15.10.2004

¶24

P6: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2^nd RESPONDENT DT. 15.9.2005

¶25

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

\TRUE COPY\

PA TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

¶30

W.P.(C).33187/2005

¶31

Dated this the 6^th day of December, 2011

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

Ext.P1, an order of assignment on registry passed by the second respondent shows that in LA(P).2930/PNY, 0.4987 ares of land in Sy.Nos.2315/10 and 2315/12 of Panancherry Village was ordered to be assigned to the petitioner. This order was issued as early as on 31.10.1977. In spite of the issuance of the order, patta was not issued. According to the petitioner, in pursuance to Ext.P1, he had also remitted an amount of Rs.672/88 on 3.8.1981 towards the assessment dues, demarcation charges, land value and revalue. Finally by Ext.P6, he was informed by the second respondent that on verification, the relevant file was misplaced and therefore, they are unable to issue patta. It was there upon, this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to trace out the file in L.A(P).2930/PNY and issue the purchase certificate.

¶34

No counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents so far.

¶35

Facts pleaded in the writ petition show that the land in question was ordered to be assigned and the petitioner had remitted the required amounts also. In spite of it, purchase

¶36

W.P.(C).33187/05

¶37

¶38

certificate is not issued. The only reason disclosed in Ext.P6 is that the files could not be traced out. This reason is totally unacceptable.

¶39

Once an order of assignment is issued and the conditions thereof are satisfied, it is the duty of the respondents to complete the procedural formalities and issue certificate of purchase to the beneficiary. Since it has not been done so far, I dispose of this writ petition directing the second respondent that on the production of a copy of this judgment, files shall be retrieved and purchase certificate shall be issued to the petitioner. This process shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge

¶41

mrcs

¶42

/true copy/

¶43

P.A. To Judge

K.Sethumadhavan v. Dist.Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sethumadhavan v. Dist.Collector

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

Nikhil Balakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

C.H.Abdurahiman Vs the Commissioner of Land Revenue

Venu Nair Vs Dist.Collector, Kollam

E.a.James @ E.a.Varkey Vs Biju Xaviour

A.M. Aboobacker Jhaji Vs Kerala Stae Wakf Board and Ors.

The Manager, Mar Baselios College of Eng Vs University of Kerala