Disposed

K.Seethammapillai @ Seethamma v. the District Collector

Kerala HC6 Oct 2016WP(C)/22360/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions for mutation of 3 cents land assigned in 1989 but not acted upon. Court directed 3rd respondent to implement Ext.P8 order if no legal impediments, pending hearing on application status within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 3rd respondent to implement Ext.P8 order if no legal impediments; Petitioner to produce application details within two months.

K.Seethammapillai @ Seethamma Vs the District Collector — Landlord and Tenant | 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 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/14TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 22360 of 2016 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

K.SEETHAMMAPILLAI @ SEETHAMMA, AGED 83, W/O SIVASANKARAPILLAI, SANKARA BHAVAN, KURIYOTTUKONAM, MINNAMCODE, PEYAD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶9

SRI.P.BAJI RAVEENDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 001.

¶12

2. THE TAHSILDAR,

¶13

NEYYATTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 121.

¶14

3. THE TAHSILDAR, KATTAKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN- 695 572.

¶15

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILAPPIL VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -695 573.

¶16

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

WP(C).No. 22360 of 2016 (T)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.LA II, 1/89 DATED 05-05-1989 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BEARING DATED 18-05-1989
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 18-07-2002 BETWEEN THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 2
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16-04-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20-04-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 03-08-2015 SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF A COMPLAINT DATED 07-10-2015 SUBMITTED TO THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 03-02-2016 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER TRIVANDRUM TO THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR KATTAKADA.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶28

W.P.(C). No.22360 of 2016 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of October, 2016

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

According to the petitioner, an extent of 3 cents of land

¶31

was assigned to the petitioner in the year 1989 after complying with all legal and statutory formalities. Thereafter, petitioner made a request before the 2^nd respondent for effecting mutation of the property. However, there was no action from the side of the 2^nd respondent. Consequent to which, petitioner moved before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kudappanakkunnu, Thiruvananthapuram and thereupon, Ext.P8 order was passed issuing certain directions to the 3^rd respondent. According to the petitioner, no action was taken pursuant to Ext.P8 and it is in this background seeking appropriate direction this writ petition is filed.

¶32

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

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

¶34

W.P.(C). No.22360 of 2016 2

¶35

contentions raised in the writ petition. However, learned Senior Government Pleader on instructions submitted that, an application will have to be provided by the petitioner, enabling the 3^rd respondent to process the direction contained in Ext.P8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, already there is an application filed.

¶36

But in my considered opinion, in order to have a quietus to the whole issue, there will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to implement Ext.P8 order, if there are no legal impediments standing in the way of 3^rd respondent. Since a submission is made by the learned Senior Government Pleader with respect to the application to be submitted by the petitioner, I also direct the petitioner to produce a fresh application or copy of the application already submitted before the 3^rd respondent. However, a decision shall be taken in accordance with law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE

smv/06.10.2016

SHAJI P. CHALY

K.Seethammapillai @ Seethamma v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Seethammapillai @ Seethamma 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.Naseema Vs the Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, South Circle

M.P.Joosa Alias Jose Vs the State Secretary , Masters Athletic Association

G.Sundaresan Vs State of Kerala

K.Somadas Vs State of Kerala

Indian Speech, Language & Hearing Association Vs the Chairperson

Vidhu S.T. Vs State of Kerala