Disposed

Ajitha Niraimathy v. the District Collector

Kerala HC10 Nov 2016WP(C)/17606/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, owner of property in Idukki District, approached High Court via Writ Petition as mutation application remained pending. Bench directed 3rd Respondent (Tahasildar) to consider the representation, provide notice to interested parties, and decide within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 3rd Respondent to consider Ext.P6 after providing opportunity of hearing and decide within two months.

Ajitha Niraimathy Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 17606 of 2016 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

AJITHA NIRAIMATHY

¶8

D/O. S.P.MARIAPPAN NADAR, AGED 46 YEARS, MUNNAR KARA, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.N.K.KARNIS SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU, IDUKKI-685603.

¶12

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685613.

¶13

3. THE TAHASILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685553.

¶14

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, RAJAKKAD VILLAGE, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685566.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RAVI KRISHNAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 17606 of 2016 (A)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO. 462/1982 DATED 22-101982 OF RAJAKUMARI SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE WITH MALAYALAM TRANSLATION.

¶22

P2 TRUE COPY OF ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE RAJAKUMARI S.R.O. DATED 08-10-2014.

¶23

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED BEARING NO. 2685/2005 RAJAKUMARI SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE DATED 23-11-2005.

¶24

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 04-10-2014 OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER IN SY.NO. 147/1 OF RAJAKKAD VILLAGE.

¶25

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 19-12-05.

¶26

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 12-01-2016.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶33

W.P.(C)No.17606 of 2016

¶34

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2016

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

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

¶37

Petitioner is the owner of two acres of property situated in Sy.Nos.147/1 and 147/1/4 of Rajakkad Village, Idukki District, has submitted application for mutation of the property, however, no action was initiated, consequent to which, petitioner has submitted Ext.P6, which is pending consideration. It is in this background, seeking appropriate direction this writ petition is filed.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and pleadings.

¶39

Even though very many contentions are raised by the petitioner in respect of his right over the property and the duty and obligation on the part of the respondents to transfer the registry of the property, I think a quietus can be given to the whole issue by giving

¶40

W.P.(C)No.17606 of 2016 2

¶41

a direction to the 3^rd respondent. Therefore, there will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P6 and take a decision in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and any other interested or affected persons, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶42

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶43

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY,

JUDGE.

[ True copy]

P.A. to Judge

rmm/11/11/2016

Ajitha Niraimathy v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajitha Niraimathy v. the District Collector

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

M/S.Chalayyam Travels and Transports Vs Government of India

Antony @ Antony Burnad Vs State of Kerala

T.I.Alikunju Vs State of Kerala

Sudeep Mathew Vs Jobin K. George

A.J. Joseph Vs P.H.Sadiq Ali

Bindu John Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology