A writ petition was filed challenging the dismissal of an application seeking an opportunity of hearing regarding land restoration under the Kerala Schedule Tribes Act, 1975. The court directed the appellate authority to hear the matter.
Directed respondent to consider petitioner's appeal within three weeks after providing opportunity of hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/27TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 36986 of 2016 (W)
PETITIONER(S):
ABDUL SAMAD.C, S/O. MOIDUTTY, CHERUPARALIL, VAZHAMPURAM P.O, PALAKKAD.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH SRI.K.ARJUN VENUGOPAL SMT.MARY RESHMA GEORGE SMT.V.A.HARITHA SMT.SANDHYA R.NAIR SMT.P.M.MAZNA MANSOOR
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD - 678 001.
3. THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER, PALAKKAD - 678 101.
4. SRI. NANJAN, S/O. MASANAN KATIRAMPATHY, KARARA, AGALI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 581
BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. T.K.ARAVINDA KUMAR BABU
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 36986 of 2016 (W)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 16/06/1975 EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 9/3/1970 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED REGISTERED DEED NO.91/1970 DATED 17/1/1970.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 27/5/1987 EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DATED 14/3/1977.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 26.06.2013 FOR BASIC TAX FOR THE YEAR 2013-2014
EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR PAYMENT OF BASIC TAX FOR THE PERIOD 2015-16
EXHIBIT P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TLA 145/87 DTED 29.12.2010
EXHIBIT P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 16.01.2016
EXHIBIT P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.10.2016.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
dlk
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
W.P.(C) No.36986 of 2016
Dated this the 18th day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
Subject matter arises under Kerala Schedule Tribes (Restriction on Transfer of Lands and Restoration of Alienated Lands) Act, 1975 (hereinafter called 'Act, 1975'). An application filed by the 4th respondent seeking restoration of the property was allowed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottapalam, which according to the petitioner, was decided without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. There upon, petitioner has submitted Ext.P13 before the RDO seeking to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and take a decision in the subject matter. Same was dismissed as per Ext.P14 order dated 4.10.2016 stating that, petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal before the District Collector, within 30 days, failing which petitioner will have to secure an order from the High Court. It is in this background seeking appropriate direction, this writ petitioner is filed.
W.P.(C) No.36986 of 2016
2
Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and pleadings put forth.
W.P.(C) No.36986 of 2016
3
hearing, I think it is only appropriate that, petitioner is provided with an opportunity, at least by the appellate authority. Therefore, if the petitioner makes an appeal within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, same shall be considered by the second respondent, after providing sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P. CHALY,JUDGE
dlk/19/11/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Director/Authority was justified in dismissing the petitioner's request for an opportunity of hearing without providing one.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ABDUL SAMAD.C
THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD
THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER, PALAKKAD
SRI. NANJAN
SHAJI P.CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
