Allowed

Unneenkutty v. the District Collector, Malappuram

Kerala HC11 Jun 2014WP(C)/4477/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regarding mutation of tea plantation land exempt under Section 81 of the Land Reforms Act purchased from an auction. Court held mutation was viable despite pending ceiling case unless land usage changes. Ordered 2nd respondent to effect mutation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Ordered the 2nd respondent to effect mutation of petitioners' properties and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Unneenkutty Vs the District Collector, Malappuram — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/21ST JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 4477 of 2013 (H)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. UNNEENKUTTY, AGED 46 YEARS S/O.POTTAYIL KUNNJAMMED RESIDING AT VELLAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. UMMER KOYA RESIDING AT VELLAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

3. SIDHEEQUE.P.

¶10

RESIDING AT VELLAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

4. SHAMSUDHEEN

¶12

RESIDING AT VELLAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶13

5. LUKKUMANUL HAKKIM RESIDING AT VELLAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

6. ABDUL KHADER RESIDING AT VELLAYOOR AMSOM DESOM, NILAMBUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

BY ADVS. SRI. K. RAMAKUMAR (SR.) SRI. S.M. PRASANTH SMT. SMITHA GEORGE

¶16

RESPONDENTS:

¶17

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶18

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER KERALA ESTATE, NILAMBUR TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 329.

¶19

3. THE TAHSILDAR NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM-679 329.

¶20

BY . GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANITHA RAVINDRAN

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No. 4477 of 2013 (H)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:-

¶25

EXHIBIT P1	-	COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO ONE OF THE PETITIONERS BY THE CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PLANTATIONS, KOTTAYAM.
EXHIBIT P2	-	COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 13.8.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3	-	COPY OF THE REMINDER SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4	-	COPY OF THE REMINDER SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5	-	COPY OF THE REMINDER SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P6	-	COPY OF THE REMINDER SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 4TH PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P7	-	COPY OF THE REMINDER SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 5TH PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P8	-	COPY OF THE REMINDER SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 6TH PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P9	-	COPY OF THE LETTER NO.L B(B.12)-12005/11(1) DATED 1.3.2012 ADDRESSED TO ALL THE DISTRICT COLLECTORS IN KERALA BY THE LAND BOARD & LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.4477 of 2013

¶31

Dated this the 11^th day of June 2014

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Petitioners have submitted applications before the revenue authorities for effecting mutation of their property. This was denied by the revenue authorities on the ground that some land ceiling case is pending.

¶34

Counter affidavit is filed by the 3^rd respondent inter alia stating that about 22 acres of land which originally belonged to Arthala Tea Estate was purchased by the petitioners, while the same was auctioned on account of the proceedings initiated by the Kerala Financial Corporation. The land was originally a tea plantation which was exempted under Section 81 of the Land Reforms Act. If the land was already exempted, there was nothing wrong in the petitioners purchasing the said property which remains as an exempted land. A ceiling case would arise if they change the nature of land to another unexempted category.

¶35

W.P.C.No.4477/2014

¶36

¶37

Having regard to the said situation, it was very well open for the revenue authorities to have effected mutation in favour of the petitioner.

¶38

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of as under: The 2^nd respondent shall take necessary steps to effect mutation of the properties belonging to the petitioners and appropriate orders may be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

(sd/-)

¶40

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶41

jsr

Unneenkutty v. the District Collector, Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Unneenkutty v. the District Collector, Malappuram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.J.John Vs Kerala Small Industries Development Corp

Raghavan.G Vs the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

K.Vasanthakumari Vs the State of Kerala

The Kerala State Private Bus Operators Federation Vs State of Kerala

Jayakumar V.M Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Gimon Vs Sub Inspector of Police