Disposed

Rose Thomas v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Feb 2015WP(C)/1452/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses the requirement for a merit-based adjudication of a writ petition filed by an individual seeking boundary fixation of their land. The court issued a direction for the office to dispose of the petition within two months after providing an opportunity of hearing to interested parties, without examining the substantive claims. The petition was effectively disposed of on the li

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider and finalize the petitioner's representation within two months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to interested parties.

Rose Thomas Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/14TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 1452 of 2015 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ROSE THOMAS, 7/43, NEW SBI COLONY, WEST THAMBARAM, CHENNAI-600 045.

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.K.P.SANTHI, SRI.RILGIN V.GEORGE, SMT.E.U.DHANYA.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶12

3. THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR-680 110.

¶13

4. TALUK SURVEYOR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR-680 110.

¶14

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.K.C. VINCENT.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 1452 of 2015 (F)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NOS. 1747 AND 1766 OF 1962 OF SRO, KALLETTUMKARA.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 14.01.2013 AND 26.03.2013 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶27

========================

¶28

W.P.(C). No. 1452 of 2015

¶29

¶30

Dated this the 3^rd day of February, 2015

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer:

¶33

“Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 directing the 3^rd respondent to measure and fix the boundaries of the petitioner's property, and to issue a sketch of the property within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court.”

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, the petitioner is the owner and in possession of the lands covered by Ext.P1 title deed of the SRO Kallettumkara. For enjoyment of the property in a better and effective manner, measurement and fixation of the boundaries as per the title deed is essential. It is with this intent that the 2^nd respondent was moved by filing Ext.P2 representation and the prayer is only to cause the same to be considered and disposed of within a reasonable time.

¶35

3. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶36

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the

¶37

W.P.C. No. 1452 of 2015 -2-

¶38

matter need not be adjudicated on merit, in view of the limited extent of relief sought for. In the said circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2^nd respondent of consider and finalize Ext.P2 in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other interested parties, if any, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶39

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2^nd respondent for further steps.

¶40

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶41

kp/-

Rose Thomas v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rose Thomas 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

A.K.G.Memorial Labour Contract Society Ltd. Vs Shri.Suseel Chandran

T.K.Gopi Vs State Bank of Travancore

Navas Vs State of Kerala

Susheela Narayanan Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board

M/S.Chandragiri Construction Company Vs State of Kerala

Sasidharan T.P. Vs the Village Officer, Edayur North Post