Remanded

Arumughan v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC27 Sept 2016WP(C)/19955/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an order dismissing a complaint for non-prosecution and directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to decide the matter on merits within two months after providing notice to the fourth respondent, dispensing with further notice to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directed the first respondent to decide the complaint on merits within two months after giving notice to the fourth respondent.

Arumughan Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/5TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 19955 of 2016 (T)

PETITIONER :

----------

ARUMUGHAN

S/O.KANDAN, RAMAN CHENNATHU VEEDU, KANNADI P. O., PALAKKAD

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

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

¶13

1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶14

PALAKKAD 678001

¶15

2. VILLAGE OFFICER

¶16

KANNADI I, VILLAGE, PALAKKAD 678701

¶17

3. THE TAHSILDAR PALAKKAD 678001

¶18

4. SREEDEVI RAJAGOPAL

¶19

434, G. V. RESIDENCY, GOURIPALAYM, COMPATORE 28, TAMIL NADU

¶20

R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVIDKUMAR BABU

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No. 19955 of 2016 (T)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD 25/2/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT

¶27

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 26/9/2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT

¶28

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD 27/2/2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT

¶29

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO 2687/11 DTD 31/10/2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT

¶30

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO 66/2013 OF THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT JUDGE OF PALAKKAD DTD 19/4/2014

¶31

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO G/2314/14 DTD 23/4/2016 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT

¶32

P7: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DTD 22/1/2014 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT

¶33

P8: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD 7/2/2014 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE IST RESPONDENT

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶39

W.P.(C). NO. 19955 OF 2016

¶40

Dated this the 27^th day of September, 2016

¶41

JUDGMENT

¶42

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash Ext. P6 order passed by the first respondent dated 23.04.2016, whereby a complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non-prosecution and for other related reliefs. Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

¶43

Petitioner is in absolute possession and enjoyment of property comprised in R.Sy. No. 194/8 (old Sy. No. 15/3A) in Kannadi I Village. According to the petitioner, fourth respondent purchased the paddy fields surrounding the petitioner's property and converted the same into plots for the construction of residential buildings with an intention to

¶44

W.P.(C). NO. 19955 OF 2016 2

¶45

facilitate the real estate business of the fourth respondent. Accordingly, petitioner has filed Ext. P1 complaint dated 25.02.2011 before the first respondent. Accordingly, first respondent issued notice twice directly to the fourth respondent to appear for hearing, evident from Exts. P2 and P3. Since, nobody appeared on behalf of the fourth respondent, first respondent has passed Ext.P4 interim order directing the fourth respondent to remove the obstructions in the pathway leading to the petitioner's aforementioned paddy field, evident from Ext. P4.

¶46

Being aggrieved, fourth respondent preferred Criminal Revision No. 66/2013 before the District Court, Palakkad. After hearing both parties, the matter was remanded back to the first respondent for taking a decision after hearing the respective parties, evident from Ext. P5. However, Ext. P6 order is passed by the first respondent stating that inspite of issuance of several notices to the petitioner, petitioner did not appear to contest the proceedings and presuming that the petitioner has no

¶47

W.P.(C). NO. 19955 OF 2016

¶48

¶49

intention to proceed with the complaint, the same was dismissed. It is in this background seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed.

¶50

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

¶51

The sole question for consideration is whether any manner of interference is required to Ext. P6 order passed by the first respondent. Apparently, Ext. P6 order is passed not on merits, but for want of prosecution from the side of the petitioner. However, learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that inspite of several notices issued, petitioner did not care to appear before the first respondent and the endorsements made by the Village Officer through which the notices were attempted to be served shows that the petitioner was not in station and was at New Delhi. However, in order to give a quietus to the whole issue, I think it is only appropriate that the first respondent is directed to take a decision on the complaint submitted by

¶52

W.P.(C). NO. 19955 OF 2016 4

¶53

the petitioner on merits, after providing notice to the fourth respondent also. In view of the limited nature of order I propose to pass, notice to the fourth respondent is dispensed with.

¶54

Therefore, I direct the petitioner to appear before the first respondent on 14.10.2016 and the first respondent shall proceed on the appearance of the petitioner, in accordance with the complaint filed by the petitioner and after issuing notice to the fourth respondent, a final decision shall be taken in the complaint filed by the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the petitioner.

¶55

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶56

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶57

DCS

Arumughan v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumughan v. Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Danu Maheendran Vs State of Kerala

Mariyakutty Vs the Tahsildar

K v Mohanan @ Mohankumar Vs the State of Kerala

The Managing Committee, Tiruvalla East Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the State Co-Operative Election Commission

C.P.Manilal Vs the Deputy Tahasildar

Mr. Jamal Vs District Collector