Disposed

Abdul Rehman v. the District Collector

Kerala HC26 Jun 2012WP(C)/12734/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, noting that the petitioner's property was incorrectly recorded as puramboke in resurvey records and a prior order existed, directed the third respondent to finalize action or conduct a proper enquiry after giving notice to the petitioner and the Panchayat within six weeks, without delving into the case's merits.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent to finalise action after notice to the petitioner and fifth respondent within six weeks.

Abdul Rehman Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/5TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 12734 of 2012 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ABDUL REHMAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.MOIDUTTY, AYAKOLANGARA HOUSE, PERINGOTTUKURISSI, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD PIN 678001.

¶11

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD PIN 678001.

¶12

THE TAHASILDAR,

¶13

TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT PIN 678541.

¶14

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINGOTTUKURISSI-2 VILLAGE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 541.

¶15

PERINGOTTUKURISSI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PERINGOTTUKURISSI ALATHUR, PALAKKAD REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.VINCENT

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C)No.12734/2012

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶21

EXT.P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED DEED NO.3107/2005 OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, PARALI.
EXT.P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT NO.230 DATED 30-12-1987 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE DATED 15-01-1992 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE HOUSE TAX RECEIPT DATED 10-12-1999 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.192/90 DATED 19-12-1990.
EXT.P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05-07-1994 PREFERRED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.B2. 277/10 DATED 09-04-2010.
EXT.P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER No.A-6082/2010K DS DATED 19-01-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION No.F3-2010/4136/9/100 DATED 07-01-2012 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL.

¶23

True copy

¶24

P.A. to Judge

¶25

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶26

--------------------------------------------W.P.(C)No.12734 of 2012

¶27

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 26^th day of June, 2012

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a

¶30

direction to the third respondent commanding the respondents to rectify the mistakes in survey records pertaining to Re.Sy.No.276/6 of Block No.4 in Peringottukurissi-2 Village of Palakkad District. Further direction is sought for commanding the 3^rd respondent to conduct a proper enquiry as envisaged in Ext.P8 order by the 2^nd respondent.

¶31

In fact the petitioner is having properties in Re.Sy.No.276/6 (Old Survey No.141B/7A) in Perinigottukurissi-2 Village and the details of the averments have been mentioned in paragraph 1 of the Writ Petition. There is a pond known as Ayakulam and he has been holding title to the same as per Ext.P1.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the resurvey the pond is recorded as puramboke which led to the petitioner to file a representation as Ext.P7. Thereafter Ext.P8 order has been passed by the 2^nd respondent.

¶33

W.P.(C)No.12734/2012

¶34

: 2 :

¶35

The learned Government Pleader on getting

¶36

instructions submitted that only because of the non-co-operation of the Panchayat and in the light of the resolution referred to in Ext.P9 further action could not taken.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext.P8 cannot be left unattended merely for the reason that the Panchayat has taken a contrary stand.

¶38

I am not going into the merits since it is open to the third respondent to conduct due enquiries in the matter and accordingly there will be a direction to the third respondent to finalise the action after notice to the petitioner and fifth respondent-Panchayath within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this Writ Petition by the petitioner.

¶39

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE

¶40

skj

Abdul Rehman v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Rehman v. the District 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

V.E.Moyi Haji Vs State of Kerala

Syriac.v.J Vs Union of India

Raijo Vs Infant Jesus Public School

Legi Vs James Varghese

Kumari Amma Vs State of Kerala

Nipun Varghese Vs State of Kerala