Disposed

V. Vijay Amrutharaj v. the Tahsildar, Peermedu Taluk

Kerala HC28 Nov 2016WP(C)/17592/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court addressed a writ petition challenging an order for non-issuance of pattayam. It held that sufficient opportunity was not provided to interested parties due to lack of proper service of notice. The judge directed the District Collector to reconsider the application after issuing notices to all interested parties within a specific timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Collector to take on board the petitioner's application, issue notices to all interested parties, and reconsider the matter within three months.

V. Vijay Amrutharaj Vs the Tahsildar, Peermedu Taluk — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 17592 of 2016 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

V. VIJAY AMRUTHARAJ, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.LATE VELLASWAMY, MERCY COTTAGE, VAGAMON VILLAGE AND POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE TAHSILDAR, PEERMEDU TALUK, PEERUMEDU POST, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685603.

¶11

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAGAMON VILLAGE, VAGAMON POSTR, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685603.

¶12

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PAINAVU P.O.,IDUKKI-685603.

¶13

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C).No. 17592 of 2016 (Y)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 5/8/14 ISSUED TO PETITIONER FROM ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH RELATING TO BUILDING NO.3/191 OF THE SAID PANCHAYATH

¶20

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT DATED 5/8/14 ISSUED TO PETITIONER FROM ELAPPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH RELATING TO BUILDING NO.3/191A OF THE SAID PANCHAYATH

¶21

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED 18/5/15 SUBMITTED TO R1

¶22

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REGISTERED LETTER DATED 3/8/15 FORWARDED TO R1

¶23

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 31/8/15 IN WPC.25415/15 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT

¶24

P6: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.C3-13580/15 DATED 26/11/15 OF R1 COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER

¶25

P7: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 2/15 IN WPC.37969/15 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT

¶26

P8: TRUE COPY OF R1 REGISTERED LETTER DATED 11/2/16 COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER

¶27

P9: TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED 29/2/16 FORWARDED TO R BY SPEED POST.

¶28

P10: TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S COMPLAINT DATED 30/4/16 RECENTLY FORWARDED TO R3 BY SPED POST.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶35

W.P.(C). No. 17592 OF 2016

¶36

Dated this the 28^th day of November, 2016

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The subject issue raised in this writ petition is in respect of non-issuance of pattayam to the petitioner. Petitioner has submitted Ext. P3 application seeking pattayam, apparently under the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules. That application was not considered. Consequently, petitioner approached this Court and secured Ext. P5 judgment dated 31.08.2015, whereby Ext. P3 application was directed to be considered, within a period of three months. Pursuant to the said direction, Ext. P6 order was passed, which was challenged before this Court and secured Ext. P7 judgment, whereby the order passed by the Tahsildar was set aside and directed to reconsider. Pursuant to the said direction, now Ext. P8 order is passed dated 11.02.2016, holding that all necessary and required parties are not made parties to the application and

¶39

W.P.(C). No. 17592 OF 2016 2

¶40

therefore, directed the petitioner to make all parties in the party array and move an application, before the Special Tahsildar, Peerumedu. The said order is under challenge, as per Ext. P10, before the third respondent. It is seeking appropriate direction accordingly, this writ petition is filed. Even though in an impleading petition filed by the petitioner to implead interested parties, notice was issued, there is no proper service of notice on the said parties. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion, sufficient opportunity has to be provided to the said parties also.

¶41

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader, there will be a direction to the third respondent to take on board Ext. P10 application and consider the same, in accordance with law, after issuing notice to all the interested parties, whose address and details shall be furnished by the petitioner, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the address, notices shall be issued to the party respondents and a final decision shall be taken

¶42

W.P.(C). No. 17592 OF 2016

¶43

¶44

in the matter, within three months from the date of service

¶45

of notice on the interested parties.

¶46

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶47

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶48

DCS

V. Vijay Amrutharaj v. the Tahsildar, Peermedu Taluk

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Vijay Amrutharaj v. the Tahsildar, Peermedu Taluk

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

Somarajan J.T Vs K.P.S.C.

V.Ramakrishnan Vs the Village Officer

K.C.Antony Vs the Village Officer

M/S.G4S Secure Solutions (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs Cochin Inernationl Airport Ltd.

Jose V.J. Vs State of Kerala

D.Johny Vs State of Kerala