Dismissed

Leena Joseph v. Additional Tahsildar

Kerala HC26 Oct 2016WP(C)/16999/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Court rejected petition challenging rejection of representation. Held that appeal provided under Rule 18 of Transfer of Registry Rules protects respondent order. Extends liberty for petitioner to approach appellate authority within stipulated time for condonation of delay.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Liberty granted to approach appellate authority within four months for condonation of delay.

Leena Joseph Vs Additional Tahsildar — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/4TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 16999 of 2015 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

LEENA JOSEPH, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O. VARGHESE, NARAYATHPARAMBIL HOUSE, MURIYAD P.O- 680 683.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.LINDONS C.DAVIS

¶9

SMT.E.U.DHANYA

¶10

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶11

THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA-680 121.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. S.KANNAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

Msd.

¶15

WP(C).No. 16999 of 2015 (Y)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶18

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL SALE DEED NUMBER 2073/99. EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER 960/2008. EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT SHOWING THAT THE LAND WAS MUTATED IN THE NAME OF RAMAN. EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE DEED 5054/2012. EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 05.01.2013. EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.09.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P7: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 12.04.2010. EXHIBIT-P8: TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT REJECTING THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.03.2015.

¶19

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶25

W.P.(C). No.16999 of 2015

¶26

Dated this the 26^th day of October, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P8 issued by the respondent under Section 17 of the Transfer of Registry Rules. As per provisions of Rule 18 of the said Rules, an appeal is provided and I do not find any grounds established by the petitioner so as to interfere with Ext.P8 order invoking the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

Therefore, I decline interference, however, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to make an appeal before the appellate authority, since power to condone the delay in appeal is vested with the appellate authority under rule 18(ii). If the petitioner makes appeal within two weeks, same shall be considered as filed within time and proceed in accordance with law and attain finality at the earliest and at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶30

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶33

smv 27.10.2016

Leena Joseph v. Additional Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Leena Joseph v. Additional Tahsildar

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

G.Vijayan Vs Branch Manager, the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd.

T.Sasirekha Vs Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Hotels and Resorts Ltd.

M/S. Manning China Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Customs

Sunny Xavier Vs the Competent Authority

Anish Zachariah Vs Executive Engineer, PWD Roads and Bridges Division

Yasir Vs Custodian of Vested Forest