Dismissed

Palakkad District Estate v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Jun 2016OP/17137/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, in an original petition challenging a revision order requiring fresh steps for auction proceedings under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968, observed that the petitioners had failed to furnish necessary instructions. Consequently, the Court held that nothing survived in the writ petition and ordered it to be closed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed with no costs awarded.

Palakkad District Estate Vs State of Kerala — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/19TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

OP.No. 17137 of 2002 (M)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1. THE PALAKKAD DISTRICT ESTATE MAZDOOR SANGHAM (BMS) REG.NO.285/55, HARIKKAR STREET, P.O. PALAKKAD - 678 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY S.EASWARAN.

¶8

2. THE NELLIAMPATHY ESTATE LABOUR CONGRESS (INTUC) REG.NO.18/54, NELLIAMPATHY P.O.,, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 511 REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT SECRETARY M.V.KOCHAPPAN.

¶9

3. THIRUMALA SWAMY, S/O.RAMASWAMY WORKER, N.S.PLANTATIONS, ANAMADA,NELLIAMPATHY P.O. PALAKKAD - 678 511.

¶10

4. APPU, S/O. APPUKUTTAN, WORKER N.S.PLANTATIONS, ANAMADA,NELLIAMPATHY P.O., PALAKKAD 678 511.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.

¶16

4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITTOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶17

5. SRI.M.S.ANIL, FARM HOUSE, PARASUVAIKAL NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

6. SRI.VENKITAPATHY, S/O.PAPPUSWAMY NAIDU 4A, RNP CO-OPERATIVE COLONY, COIMBATHORE.

¶19

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ P. KUNJACHAN BY ADVS. SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN

¶20

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

OP.No. 17137 of 2002 (M)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :-

¶24

EXT.P1	-	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(B) 5.2914/2002 DATED 28.05.2002 ISSUED BY R2.
EXT.P2	-	COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 27.05.1998 CONCILIATED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P3	-	COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 18.03.2002 CONCILIATED BY THE DISTRICT LABOUR OFFICER, PALAKKAD.
EXT.P4	-	COPY OF THE APPLICATION MOVED BY THE TAHSILDAR (RR) CHITTOOR IN O.S. NO.62/1986 ON THE FILE OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE'S COURT, PALAKKAD DATED 22.05.2001.
EXT.P5	-	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2001 IN O.S. NO.62 OF 1986.
EXT.P6	-	COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT APPEARED IN THE HINDU DAILY DATED 08.07.2001.
EXT.P7	-	COPY OF THE NEWS REPORT APPEARED IN THE INDIAN EXPRESS DAILY DATED 24.07.2001.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶30

---------------------------------O.P. No.17137 of 2002-M

¶31

---------------------------------Dated this the 9^th day of June, 2016

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioners are concerned with Ext.P1 order dated 28.05.2002 in a revision petition under Section 53 of the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act, 1968 [for brevity, the Act of 1968]. The petitioners are the union of workers employed in a plantation and it is for the dues of such workers, in the plantation, that a charge was created on the property and proceedings were taken under the Act of 1968. The 6^th respondent had bid the property in auction.

¶34

A reading of Ext.P1 would indicate that

¶35

there were some title disputes with respect to the plantation sought to be auctioned. The 5^th

¶36

O.P. No.17137 of 2002-M

¶37

¶38

respondent, who claimed to be one of the co-owners, challenged the sale conducted by the Revenue Authorities. The sale was set aside by the reivisional order at Ext.P1. In such circumstance, as per Ext.P1, fresh steps have to be taken to proceed against the property.

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that as of now there is no instructions from the petitioners and as per their information, the successful bidder was refunded the money aforecited. In such circumstance, nothing survives in the writ petition and the proceedings have to be continued, if not already concluded.

¶40

The writ petition hence would stand closed. No costs.

¶41

Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶42

//True Copy//

¶43

P.A. to Judge.

¶44

sp/09/06/16

Palakkad District Estate v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palakkad District Estate 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Mohanakumar Vs Dr.M.Jayaprakas

Vijayan Pillai S. Vs Arshad M.

Mr.Jaleel Vs the Secretary,Keezhmadu Grama Panchayat

Lt.Col. (Rtd) George Kuruvila Vs the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

K.P.Basheer Vs Kottayan Municipality

K.C.Arumughan Vs Ottapalam Municipality