Disposed

Chinnamma Joseph v. District Collector

Kerala HC4 Sept 2013WP(C)/1125/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, owner of land in Idukki, sought a duplicate Patta after losing the original. The court found the original file with the respondents could not be traced. It directed the respondents to trace or reconstruct the file and issue the duplicate Patta within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to trace or reconstruct the missing Land Assignment file and issue a Duplicate Patta within three months.

Chinnamma Joseph Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013/13TH BHADRA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 1125 of 2013 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

CHINNAMMA JOSEPH,W/O.JOSEPH, AGED 68 YEARS KARAKKATT HOUSE, KALAKETTY P.O., PINNAKKANAD KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BABY THOMAS SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN SRI.JOJO T.ZACHARIAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶11

COLLECTORATE PAINAV IDUKKI DISTRICT 685 603.

¶12

2. THAHSILDAR,

¶13

THODUPUZHA TALUK THODUPUZHA 685 584.

¶14

3. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(LAND ASSIGNMENT)

¶15

IDUKKI 685 503.

¶16

4. VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶17

ARAKKULAM VILLAGE THODUPUZHA TALUK 685 584.

¶18

5. VILLAGE OFFICER

¶19

ELLAPPALLY VILLAGE THODUPUZHA TALUK 685 584

¶20

R1 TO 5 BY SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SUSHEELA BHAT

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-09-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

tss

¶23

W.P.(C) NO.1125/2013

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶26

EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF LAND ASSIGNMENT REGISTER.

¶27

EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26-08-1998 SUBMITTED TO 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 21-07-2001.

¶29

EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXT.P5TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE CHIEF MINISTER DATED 22-10-2012.

¶31

EXT.P6TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 14-11-2012 .

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE

tss

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: W.P.(C). No. 1125 of 2013

¶38

...................................................... Dated this the 4^th day of September, 2013

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The petitioner is the owner of the property having an extent

¶41

of 1.44 acres of land in Survey No. 736/1/1 of Ellapally Village of Thodupuzha Taluk. It is contended by the petitioner that the property came to the hands of the petitioner as per L.A.No. 23/21 as early as in the year 1981 and ever since then, the property was being enjoyed by her also remitting basic tax after effecting mutation of the property. Somehow or other, the petitioner lost her original 'Patta' and applied for a duplicate. Inspite of the best efforts right from 1997 onwards, by filing various representations and meeting the respondents at different points of time, nothing transpired in the positive, but for making the petitioner to run from pillar to post and hence the writ petition, seeking for a direction to issue 'Duplicate Patta' to the petitioner in respect of the property as aforesaid.

¶42

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent wherein, it is stated in paragraphs 4 and 5 as follows:

¶43

“4. An extent of 1.44 acres of land (58.28 Ares) comprised in Survey No. 736/1/1 of the Elappally Village (Sy.736/1 of old Arakulam Village) of Thodupuzha Taluk was assigned to Smt. Chinnamma Joseph, Karakkattu, Elappally Village as per LA.23/81

¶44

W.P.C. No.1125 of 2013

¶45

-2-

¶46

from the Special tahsildar, Land Assignment, Idukki in 1981. The petitioner was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint Scheduled property as per T.P.No. 1580 of Elappally Village and was remitted land tax upto 200506. The petitioner lost the original patta issued by the 3^rd respondent. Then she applied for the duplicate copy of the Pattayam issued to her as per LA 23/81. The original LA file could not be traced out from the Village Office, Elappally. The petitioner lost original pattayam issued from the Special Tahsildar (Land Assignment) Idukki. So she applied for the duplicate copy of the pattayam issued to her as per LA 23/81. Enquiry in the matter revealed that the original patta file LA 23/81 has been handed over to the second respondent from the Special Tahsildar LA, Idukki and the file was handed over to Village Office, Arakulam for th mutation purpose of the property. At the time of formation of Elappally Village, the file relating LA 23/81 was handed over to Elappally Village from Arakulam village. The original L.A file is not received back from the Elappally Village Office and the same could not be traced out till date.

¶47

After implementing the resurvey records, the scheduled property was included in re-survey 387/3 of Block 21 in Elappally Village as Government land and revenue records were prepared accordingly. Hence, the land tax of this property could not be received since 2006-07. The land tax in this case could be effected from the petitioner after correcting the resurvey records. For this, the survey sketch attached to the LA file is needed. In the absence of survey

¶48

W.P.C. No.1125 of 2013 -3-

¶49

sketch, the land in which patta issued cannot be identified. Effects are being taken to trace out the LA file from Elappally Village. The Village Officer, Elappally has given strict direction to trace out the LA file.”

¶50

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, and also on going through the pleading and proceedings, this Court finds that, the fact that the original file could not be traced out by the respondents stands conceded. In the said circumstances, there will be a direction to the respondents to retrieve/trace out the 'file' forthwith and if the same is not possible, to reconstruct the file and to issue a 'Duplicate Patta' to the petitioner, on satisfaction of the requirements in accordance with the relevant Rules and remitting the charges, if at all any payable in this regard. The proceedings as above shall be finalized at the earliest, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of.

¶51

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the respondents for further steps.

¶52

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶53

kp/-

Chinnamma Joseph v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnamma Joseph v. 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

G.Nandakumar Vs Dr.K.Elankovan

Ramadas K.S Vs P.M Francis

P.Vinod Kumar Vs Narayanan K.R.

Sivaraman Vs Anil Kumar Agarwal

Krishnankutty Nair Vs District Collector

Abdul Gafoor Vs the District Collector