Dismissed

Cherian a. Paul v. the Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala HC18 Jun 2012WP(C)/7649/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Village Officer to consider the petitioner's grievances regarding land survey inaccuracies and puramboke land possession, including the report of the Taluk Survey Officer, and pass orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the second respondent to consider the petitioner's grievances, relevant reports, and government orders, and to pass orders within six weeks after notice.

Cherian a. Paul Vs the Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram — 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

MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/28ND JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 7649 of 2012 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

CHERIAN A. PAUL, MANGALATHU HOUSE, MAMMY'S COLONY, KAWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 907.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ANTONY C. ETTUKETTIL SRI.MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶11

2. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR (EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE),

¶12

TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶13

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶14

THYCAUD VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶15

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶16

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶17

5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

¶18

R1 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SANJEETHA

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

sts

¶21

WP(C)NO.7649/2012

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶24

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03-08-2011 IN WPC NO. 21143 OF 2011.

¶25

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 22-11-2011 OF THE HEAD SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶26

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTERS DATED 22-12-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTERS DATED 10-01-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10-01-2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶29

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 13-01-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT)NO. 999/2011/WRD DATED 01-10-2011.

¶31

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06-08-2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶38

W.P.(C). No.7649/2012-E
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Dated this the 18th day of June, 2012

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the second respondent to consider the grievances raised by the petitioner in Ext.P6.

¶41

It is averred that he is having 1 Acre and 6 cents of land in ReSurvey Nos.32 and 15 of Thycaud Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C). No.21143/2011 wherein, by Ext.P1 Judgment, this Court directed the authorities to consider and pass orders on the objections filed by the petitioner challenging the inaccuracy of the survey and to pass orders. Thereafter, the Surveyor visited the site and filed a report as evidenced by Ext.P2. A survey was conducted thereafter and Ext.P2 is the copy of the report. According to the petitioner, the Taluk Surveyor omitted to note that the petitioner constructed the compound wall on the eastern side, fully excluding the puramboke land in Re-Survey No.110/24.

¶42

The petitioner's contention is that he does not possess any portion of the puramboke land and, therefore, with regard to the objection submitted also, he has filed an objection as per Ext.P6.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioner also reiterated that the petitioner is not in possession of any puramboke land and if a proper

¶44

W.P.(C). No.7649/2012

¶45

-:2:-

¶46

verification is made, the fact can be cleared. Therefore, the petitioner also prays for a direction that the puramboke land should be earmarked separately.

¶47

It is upto the second respondent to consider all the aspects and, there will be a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P6 along with the report of the Taluk Survey Officer and any other relevant reports, including Ext.P7 order passed by the Government, and he will take a decision after notice to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

ms

Cherian a. Paul v. the Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Cherian a. Paul v. the Tahsildar, Thiruvananthapuram

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

M.Sumangala Vs S.N.Burman

Thomas Sebastian Vs Bar Council of Kerala

C.K.Sayeed Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam

A.Mohanan Vs Tahsildar

Shibi Vs State of Kerala

K.v.Ganesh Nair Vs University of Calicut