Disposed

Sajan M.B. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC30 Sept 2016WP(C)/18732/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner sought a direction for early consideration of his mutation application for acquired land. The court observed that no action was taken since 1997 and ordered the competent authority to take a decision within four months, ensuring he is heard.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority to consider the mutation application and take a decision within four months after furnishing a copy of the judgment and hearing the petitioner.

Sajan M.B. Vs State of Kerala — 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

FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/8TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 18732 of 2016 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SAJAN M.B.,

¶8

AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT MAYITHARA HOUSE, KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALLEPPEY DIST.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN - 695 001.

¶12

2. THE TAHASILDHAR, UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DIST, PIN - 685 553.

¶13

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHINNAKANAL VILLAGE, CHINNAKANAL,UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DIST,PIN - 685 618.

¶14

BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

WP(C).No. 18732 of 2016 (N)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 1425/1997 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE RAJAKUMARI

¶21

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA I.A NO 24/93 CHIN, DATED 29/6/94

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msv/

SHAJI P. CHALY, J

¶28

W.P.(C)No.18732 OF 2016

¶29

Dated this the 30^th day of September, 2016

¶30

J U D G M E N T

¶31

Petitioner has purchased 61.40 ares of land situated in 50/3 (Block No.5) of Chinnakanal village as per Ext.P1 sale deed. After purchase of the above said property, petitioner has submitted application for mutation in the revenue records as early as in the year 1997 itself, in accordance with the provisions of the Transfer of Registry Rules. However, no action was taken by the respondents, on certain flimsy reasons. From the year 1997, petitioner is making all earnest efforts to get the mutation effected. It is in this background, seeking appropriate direction for early consideration of the application, this writ petition is filed.

¶32

Second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, virtually admitting the purchase of the property by the petitioner. But however, it is

¶33

W.P.(C)No.18732 OF 2016

¶34

¶35

contended that, consequent to large scale encroachment that took place in the Munnar area, the documents were taken into custody by the officers deputed for making enquiries into the pattas provided to various persons and therefore some of the documents are not available in the office in order to consider the application. It is also stated that, certain documents removed by the crime branch under the investigating agencies were received back. However, the entire documents are not received and expressed its intention to consider the applications submitted by the petitioner in due course.

¶36

Taking note of the respective submissions and the statements made in the writ petition and the counter affidavit, I am satisfied that a direction can be issued to take a decision by the competent among the respondents or any special officer appointed to deal with the situation, if the 2^nd respondent is not vested with power to consider the application of the petitioner, the application shall be transmitted to the

¶37

¶38

W.P.(C)No.18732 OF 2016

¶39

competent officer, and any how a decision shall be taken in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶41

sd/-

¶42

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶43

R.AV

Sajan M.B. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajan M.B. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Mohanan & Co. Vs Union of India

K.Abdul Rehiman Vs Assistant Executive Engineer (Agri)

Jayakumar Vs the Branch Manager

Thomas A.C Vs Antony Chacko

Ali.P Vs Mr. Sahadevan

K.Raveendran Vs Antony Chacko