Allowed

Ambattu Hamza Haji v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC18 Nov 2015WP(C)/25281/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the first respondent to pass orders on the petitioner's application for physical verification of remaining land within three months, continuing an interim order until disposal.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to pass orders on Ext.P3 application within three months after hearing the petitioners; interim order continues till disposal.

Ambattu Hamza Haji Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/27TH KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 25281 of 2012 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. AMBATTU HAMZA HAJI, AGED 70 YEARS, S/O.MAMMED HAJI, RESIDING AT MELATTUR AMSOM, EDAYATTUR DESOM, P.O.EDAYATTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. AMBATTU ABOOBACKER HAJI, S/O.MAMMED HAJI, RESIDING AT MELATTUR AMSOM, EDAYATTUR DESOM, P.O.EDAYATTUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR SMT.VANDANA MENON

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA/CHAIRMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTHALMANNA-678001.

¶12

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THUVVUR, P.O.THUVVUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-678001.

¶13

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM -678001.

¶14

R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.J.MICHAEL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 25281 of 2012 (I)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT-P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THIS COURT IN CRP NO.884/2008 DATED 20.8.2011.

¶20

EXHIBIT-P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD, PERINTHALMANNA DATED 19.09.2012.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P3. TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19.10.12.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P4.TRUE COPY OF POSTAL COVER.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

OKB

True copy

P.A. to Judge

K.HARILAL, J.

W.P.(C) No.25281 of 2012

¶29

Dated this the 18^th day of November, 2015.

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The grievance of the petitioners is that 11.64 Acres of land comprised in Sy.No.822/1 and 0.82 Acres comprised in Sy.No.827/2 of Thuvvur Village, Perinthalmanna Taluk, which belonged to the petitioners, was ordered to be surrendered by proceedings under the Land Reforms Act by the order dated 23.4.1980 and thereafter out of that extent, 8 Acres was exempted by Ext.P2. Subsequently, the petitioners again surrendered 82 cents of property also. Thus, the balance extent of property to be surrendered is only 3.64 Acres. The 2^nd respondent without making any attempt to take possession of the remaining 3.64 Acres of land from the property lying adjacent to 8 Acres of land, which was exempted earlier, has insisted the petitioners to surrender the

¶32

WP(C).25281/12 :2:

¶33

remaining 3.64 Acres which is in the direct possession of the petitioners. Aggrieved by the proceedings, the petitioners filed Ext.P3 application before the 1^st respondent to issue necessary direction to the 2^nd respondent to conduct a physical verification and to take possession of the remaining extent of land from the property comprised in re-surveyed survey numbers. However, the 2^nd respondent is not making any attempt in this regard in spite of long lapse of years. According to the petitioners, unless appropriate direction is issued to the 1^st respondent to take up Ext.P3 and issue necessary direction to the 2^nd respondent as requested in Ext.P3, the petitioners will be put in great hardship and inconvenience.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

¶35

The learned Government Pleader opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and contended that no property is remaining adjacent to 8 Acres of property, which was exempted from the proceedings.

¶36

WP(C).25281/12 :3:

¶37

However, having regard to the grievance projected in the writ petition, the 1^st respondent is directed to pass necessary orders on Ext.P3 application, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The interim order dated 30.10.2012 will continue till the disposal of Ext.P3.

¶38

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶39

Sd/K. HARILAL, JUDGE

¶40

okb.

Ambattu Hamza Haji v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambattu Hamza Haji v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

O.Riji Wilson Vs the State of Kerala

Benny Vs the District Collector

Baby Prabha Vs District Collector

Vincent David Vs the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives

Sathi T Vs the Tahsildar

Asokan Vs the Director General Archeclogical Survey of India