Partly allowed

Tahsildar, Thlassery v. Kerala Lok Ayikta and Another

Kerala HC18 Feb 2015WP(C)/29090/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a Tahsildar challenging an order of the Lok Ayuktha regarding flawed land reconveyance is dismissed. The Court observes that recovery of possession is not a pre-condition for reconveyance and directs the Tahsildar to decide further proceedings based on a related judgment passed on the same day.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with the observation directing the Tahsildar to decide further proceedings based on the judgment in the connected writ petition.

Tahsildar, Thlassery Vs Kerala Lok Ayikta and Another — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/29TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 29090 of 2009 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THE TAHSILDAR, THALASSERY, KANNUR.

¶8

BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA LOK AYUKTHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. PUTHIYAPURAYIL AMERI YOUSUF, PERIYATHIL, P.O.P.R.NAGAR, MATTANNUR, THALASSERY, KANNUR.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SMT.RENU D.P., SC R2 BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

msv/

¶15

WP(C).No. 29090 of 2009 (E)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶18

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

¶19

EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT NO.1059/2008 OF THE LOK AYUKTHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TALUK LAND BOARD DTD.20.5.2006. EXT.P3(a): TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD.14.1.2008 IN WP(C) 185/2008. EXT.P3(b): TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD.13.2.2008 IN WP(C) 185/2008. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDDER OF THE UPA LOK AYUKTHA DTD.21.4.2009.

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Ms v/

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶27

W.P.(C)No.29090 of 2009

¶28

Dated this the 18^th day of February, 2015

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The Tahsildar, Thalassery Taluk, who is the respondent in Ext.P4 proceedings before the 1^st respondent, had filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order.

¶31

The 2^nd respondent herein had approached the 1^st respondent in a complaint alleging that the petitioner is not re-conveying the land belonging to the 2^nd respondent and another person, despite Ext.P2 order passed by the Taluk Land Board, Thalassery on 20/05/2006. The petitioner herein entered appearance before the 1^st respondent and contended that, against Ext.P2 order the declarant in the ceiling case had approached this court in a writ petition, filed as W.P(C) No.185/2008 and this court through Exts.P3(a) and P3(b) orders had stayed all further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 order of the Taluk Land Board. But the 1^st respondent found that an interim stay

¶32

W.P.(C)No.29090 of 2009 2

¶33

alone was granted and order of the Land Board was not suspended as prayed for in the writ petition. Therefore, it is observed that it is not necessary to wait till the authorities taking over possession of substitute property from the declarant, for reconveying the property to the complainant on the basis of Ext.P2 order.

¶34

Contention of the petitioner is that, by virtue of the interim orders this court had stayed all steps to take possession of the properties from the petitioner therein, and therefore no further action could have been pursued. But, the observation contained in Ext.P4 order of the 1^st respondent is to the effect that recovery of possession of the property from the declarant (petitioner in W.P(C) No.185/2008) need not be considered as a pre condition for reconveying the property to the complainant and to his co-owner.

¶35

The stand taken in Ext.P4 order is technically correct and appreciable. However, this court had already disposed of W.P(C)No.185/2008 through a separate judgment passed on today. It is submitted by learned

¶36

W.P.(C)No.29090 of 2009 3

¶37

Standing Counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent that the matter is still pending consideration before the 1^st respondent. It is for the 1^st respondent to take an appropriate decision with respect to further proceedings in the matter, taking note of the judgment in W.P(C) No.185/2008. The parties to the complaint will be at liberty to take appropriate contentions before the 1^st respondent.

¶38

The writ petition is disposed of subject to the above observations.

¶39

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶40

MJL

Tahsildar, Thlassery v. Kerala Lok Ayikta and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tahsildar, Thlassery v. Kerala Lok Ayikta and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.S. Narayanan Vs State Bank of India & Ors.

N.C.Jose Vs State of Kerala

E.M.Sharafudeen and Others Vs Kerala State Film Development Corportn

Keezhidathil Prabhakaran Vazhunnavar Vs Chief Secy.,State of Kerala,Tvpm.& Ors.

Anil Raj C.P Vs M.G.University

Jayadhar Vs State of Kerala