Dismissed

State of Kerala v. D.Bhuvanedran

Kerala HC7 Jan 2016WA/1621/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This intra-court writ appeal challenged an order of the High Court single Judge. The Division Bench rejected the appeal, holding the lower judge was justified in setting aside bought-in-land proceedings as arrears were paid and the petitioner remained in possession, finding no error to warrant interference under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed; no interference with the single Judge's order was granted.

State of Kerala Vs D.Bhuvanedran — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶5

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/17TH POUSHA, 1937

¶6

WA.No. 1621 of 2015 () IN WP(C).3213/2013

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3213/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 28-08-2014

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 6 IN W.P.(C):

¶9

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶10

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶11

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER COLLECTORATE, TRIVANDRUM.

¶12

4. THE TAHSILDAR CHIRAYINKIZH TALUK, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶13

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER PAZHAYAKUNNUMMEL VILLAGE, CHIRAYINKIZH TALUK TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶14

6. THE SALES TAX OFFICER

¶15

SALES TAX OFFICE, ATTINGAL, TRIVANDRUM-695008.

¶16

BY ADV. SMT.SOBHA ANNAMMA, EAPEN, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶18

D.BHUVANENDRAN

¶19

S/O.DIVAKARAN, KALYANI BHAVAN, KUNNUMMAL PAZHAYA KUNNUMMAL, CHIRAYINKIZH, TRIVANDRUM DIST., NOW R/A.RANI FASHIONS, 302 HIGH STREET NORTH MANDOR PARK, LONDON.

¶20

R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAMASWAMY PILLAI

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

jg-18/1

¶23

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANU SIVARAMAN, JJ.

¶24

.................................................................... W.A.No.1621 of 2015

¶25

.................................................................... Dated this the 7^th day of January, 2016.

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J.

¶28

1.Respondent appears through counsel.

¶29

2.Heard both sides.

¶30

3.The State Government challenges a judgment by which the learned single Judge interfered with bought-in-land proceedings. Having gone through the judgment, we see that the undisputed fact is that revenue arrears were actually paid off and the proceedings before the statutory authorities have been adverted to and considered by the learned single Judge, in particular, through paragraph Nos.3 to 5 of the judgment impugned. We see that the learned Judge was justified in concluding that the bought-in-land proceedings ought to be set aside, particularly when the writ petitioner is still in possession of the property. We

¶31

WA1621/15

¶32

-2-

¶33

do not find any legal infirmity or error in the decision of the learned single Judge which warrants interference through this intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958. We are not impressed by the plea that there was inordinate delay in instituting the proceedings through the writ petition. The writ petition filed in 2013 was entertained and, ultimately, decided after hearing parties on 28.08.2014. The learned single Judge having exercised discretion to decide the matter, the ground of delay in instituting the writ petition cannot be treated as a ground to interfere with that judgment rendered in discretionary jurisdiction. We are not persuaded to interfere on that count either. This writ appeal, therefore, fails.

¶34

In the result, this writ appeal is dismissed.

¶35

(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)

¶36

(ANU SIVARAMAN, JUDGE)

¶37

jg-7/1

State of Kerala v. D.Bhuvanedran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. D.Bhuvanedran

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

Travancore Devaswom Board by Its Executive Engineer, Trivandrum Vs the Deputy Director, Local Fund Audit, Trivandrum

Travancore Devaswom Board Vs Deputy Director

Professor a.K.Somasekharan Nair Vs Secretary

Padmaja B Vs Antony Chacko

M/S.Industrial Speciality Chemicals Vs the State of Kerala

Dr.George Jacob Vs State of Kerala