Disposed

Kana Kizhakkeveetil Kunhikrishnan v. the Appellate Authority

Kerala HC3 Oct 2013WP(C)/136/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the 1st respondent (Land Tribunital) to dispose of a pending appeal filed by the petitioner within three months. The Court held that any Patta issued in the meantime would be subject to the final orders passed by the Tribunal in the requested timeframe.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent directed to dispose of the appeal (Ex.P-9) within three months; any Patta issued to be subject to Tribunal's orders.

Kana Kizhakkeveetil Kunhikrishnan Vs the Appellate Authority — 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

THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/11TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C). No. 136 of 2012 (N)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 17700/1976 of LAND TRIBUNAL-II,PAYYANNUR DATED 30.06.1978

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

1. KANA KIZHAKKEVEETIL KUNHIKRISHNAN, AGED 74 YEARS AGED 74 YEARS, S/O. PILAKKAL KRISHNAN, PERINTHATTA P.O. ARAVANCHAL, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. CHEDAMBATH JANAKI, AGED 65 YEARS W/O. LATE KANA KIZHAKKEVEETIL KUNHIKRISHNAN CHEDAMBATH, PERINTHATTA,

¶10

P.O. ARAVANCHAL, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶11

3. CHEDAMBATH SURESH, AGED 47 YEARS

¶12

W/O. LATE KANA KIZHAKKEVEETIL KUNHIKRISHNAN CHEDAMBATH, PERINTHATTA, P.O. ARAVANCHAL, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

4. CHEDAMBATH SATHEESH, AGED 45 YEARS W/O. LATE KANA KIZHAKKEVEETIL KUNHIKRISHNAN CHEDAMBATH, PERINTHATTA,

¶14

P.O. ARAVANCHAL, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶15

5. CHEDAMBATH SAJEEVAN, AGED 42 YEARS W/O. LATE KANA KIZHAKKEVEETIL KUNHIKRISHNAN CHEDAMBATH, PERINTHATTA,

¶16

P.O. ARAVANCHAL, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶17

6. CHEDAMBATH REENA, AGED 40 YEARS W/O. LATE KANA KIZHAKKEVEETIL KUNHIKRISHNAN CHEDAMBATH, PERINTHATTA,

¶18

P.O. ARAVANCHAL, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶19

PETITIONERS 2 TO 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS AS PER ORDER IN I.A. NO.12885 OF 2013 DATED 03.10.2013.

¶20

BY ADV. SRI. C.P. PEETHAMBARAN

¶21

(Contd...)

¶22

WP(C). No. 136 of 2012 (N)

¶23

¶24

RESPONDENTS:

¶25

1. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY LAND REFORMS, KANNUR, PIN-670 001.

¶26

2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL/SPECIAL TAHASILDAR (LR-II) PAYYANUR, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 307.

¶27

3. K.K.V. JANAKI AMMA, AGED 76 YEARS, PLAYYANUR AMSOM, KANDANGALI P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 333.

¶28

4. KANA KIZHAKKEVEETIL JANAKI AMMA AGED 85 YEARS, D/O. UCHIRA AMMA, PERINTHATTA P.O. ARAVANCHAL, KANNUR-670 332.

¶29

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.A. SANJEETHA BY ADVS. SRI. M.V. AMARESAN SRI. V.N. RAMESAN NAMBISAN

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶31

WP(C). No. 136 of 2012 (N)

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶34

EXHIBIT P1	-	COPY OF THE LATEST TAX RECEIPT, POSSESSION CERTIFICATE AND SITE PLAN ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERINGOME IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY COMPRISED IN RE-SURVEY NO.156/5 BLOCK NO.40 OF PERINGOM VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT P2	-	COPY OF REPORT DATED 29.08.2011 OF SPECIAL REVENUE INSPECTOR ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	-	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2010 OF RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, PAYYANNUR.
EXHIBIT P4	-	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.06.1978 IN O.A. NO.17700/76 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	-	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.1982 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN A.A. NO.5480 OF 1978.
EXHIBIT P6	-	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.1982 IN A.A. NO. 5674 OF 1978 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P7	-	COPY OF THE ORDER IN SMP NO.1646/1978 DATED 10.05.1985 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8	-	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 20.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE HEAD MINISTERIAL OFFICER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	-	COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶39

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

¶40

W.P.C.No.136 OF 2012

¶41

Dated this the 3^rd day of October, 2013.

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶44

prayers:-

¶45

“ (i). call for records leading to issuance of Ext.P-7 from the 2^nd respondent and issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Ext.P-7, as it is passed by violating the principle of natural justice.

¶46

(ii). issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order, restraining the 2^nd respondent from issuing Patta to the 3^rd and 4^th respondents, in pursuance of Exhibit P-7 order.

¶47

(iii). issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order, directing the 1^st respondent to dispose off Exhibit P-8 Appeal and the connected petitions within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶48

and

¶49

(iv). grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.”

¶50

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, being

¶51

aggrieved of Ext.P7 passed by the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner

¶52

has already preferred Ext.P9 appeal, which is pending consideration before the 1^st respondent. The only prayer is to cause the same to be considered and disposed of within a reasonable time.

¶53

Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for

¶54

W.P.C.No.136 of 2012

¶55

¶56

respondents 1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for

¶57

respondents 3 and 4.

¶58

Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P9 Appeal, after hearing the petitioner and also the other parties concerned, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶59

The Patta, if any issued, will be subject to the orders to be passed by the 1^st respondent as above.

¶60

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON,

¶61

JUDGE

¶62

Kana Kizhakkeveetil Kunhikrishnan v. the Appellate Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kana Kizhakkeveetil Kunhikrishnan v. the Appellate Authority

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

O. Gopakumar Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

K.P. Ramanunni Vs Revenue Dsivisional Officer

K.K.Shaji Vs the District Collector

N.Aboobacker Vs the District Collector and Others

Palanadan Mohammed Vs the District Collector

Madhusoodanan Nair Vs the District Collector