Dismissed

Ammukutty Amma v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jul 2015WP(C)/11517/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The controller quashed an eviction order without prejudice to the authority's power to proceed after hearing the petitioner, directing the petition to close with all contentions of the petitioner left open for the quasi-judicial authority to consider.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed with contentions left open for authority; authority directed to proceed after hearing the petitioner.

Ammukutty Amma Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2015/29TH ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 11517 of 2007 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. AMMUKUTTY AMMA AGED 69, KACHERIL HOUSE, AMBALLUR VILLAGE KANJIRAMATTAM P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

*** ADDL.P2 IMPLEADED**

¶9

2. REMANI ALIAS KANJANA, D/O.LATE AMMUKUTTY AMMA, AGED 52, KACHERIL HOUSE, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, KANJIRAMATTAM.P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

ADDL. P2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03/09/2012 IN IA NO.10970/2012 IN WPC 11517/2007

¶11

BY ADVS.DR.V.N.SANKARJEE

¶12

SRI.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI SRI.M.M.VINOD

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

3. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶18

5. THE SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT, AMBALLUR.

....2/-

..2..

WP(C).No. 11517 of 2007 (U)

¶23

6. T.A.LEELA, W/O ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAI, AGED 56, 'ARUNAGIRI-PONGALIL', AROOR VILLAGE AROOR MURI, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, AROOR P.O., PIN-688 534.

¶24

7. K.N.RAMANKUTTY, S/O NARAYANA PILLAI, AGED 62, KACHERIL HOUSE, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, KANJIRAMATTOM P.O., KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.

¶25

8. HARILAL, S/O K.N.APPU, AGED ABOUT 43, PADMAVIHAR, AMBALLUR VILLAGE, KANJIRAMATTAM P.O. KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶26

R1-4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU R6,7 BY ADV. SRI.K.DHANESH KUMAR

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

¶29

WP(C).No. 11517 of 2007 (U)

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶32

P1: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 16/6/1960

¶33

P1(A): COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 23/11/60

¶34

P1(B): COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 1/3/76

¶35

P2: COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 15/11/2005

¶36

P2(A): COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 15/2/2007

¶37

P3: COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 21/6/06 MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE R2

¶38

P4: COPY OF NOTICE DATED 16/7/2006 ISSUED BY R3

¶39

P5: COPY OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 12/3/2007 OF THE R3

¶40

P6: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED NIL TOGETHER WITH THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE R4

¶41

P7: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 29/3/2007 BEFORE THE R4 AND THE RELEVANT PAGE ISSUED BY THEM

¶42

P8: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 2/3/2007 SUBMITTED TO THE R5 AND HIS COMUNICATION DATED 18/4/2007.

¶43

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT

¶44

R5A: COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER AMBALLUR

¶45

R7(A): COPY OF THE SKETCH

¶46

R7(B): COPY OF THE SKETCH

¶47

R7(C): COPY OF THE AUTHOHRIZATION DATED 7/8/06.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶52

--------------------------------------W.P(C). No.11517 of 2007

¶53

Dated this the 20^th day of July, 2015.

¶54

JUDGMENT

¶55

The petitioner was aggrieved with Ext.P5, which directed the petitioner to vacate the Purambokke land. The petitioner's contention was that the petitioner was not heard. The original petitioner is no more and the daughter is impleaded as the addl. 2^nd petitioner. This Court, on admission, had ordered an interim stay of Ext.P5, but however, making it clear that the same shall not prevent the authority from proceeding afresh, after hearing the petitioner.

¶56

In such circumstance, the respondent authority could proceed with the matter after hearing the original petitioner or if not already proceeded with, then after hearing the addl.2^nd petitioner herein.

¶57

The writ petition would stand closed, leaving open all

¶58

W.P(C). No.11517 of 2007

¶59

¶60

contentions of the petitioner to be urged before the authority. If at all an order has not been passed, then definitely the addl. petitioner will have to be heard and eviction carried on in accordance with law.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,

¶63

JUDGE

¶64

Ammukutty Amma v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ammukutty Amma v. State of Kerala

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

Sreenivas Vs Shahida Shajahan

Uthaman Vs the District Supply Officer

Mohammed a. Malika Vs District Collector

Saji Agro Food Industries Vs Kerala State Civil Supplies Corpn. Ltd.

O.v.Shanuras Vs Secretary, Higher Education Department

George Kurien Jacob Vs Institute of Hotel Management and Catering Technology