Dismissed

Assainar.M. v. Chariman, Taluk Land Board

Kerala HC4 Feb 2016WP(C)/4913/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the writ petition seeking a direction to prepare a plan and demarcate land for surrender. The Court held that the first respondent had already implemented the order and taken possession after following legal formalities, leaving the petitioner to approach the Board. The writ was disposed of as it lacked merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of on the grounds that the order had already been implemented and possession taken; the petitioner was advised to approach the Taluk Land Board.

Assainar.M. Vs Chariman, Taluk Land Board — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/15TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 4913 of 2006 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ASSAINAR.M., S/O.THERUVANDAKATHU AHAMMEDKUTTY, MANNANTAKATHU HOUSE, CHORKALA, P.O. KURUMATHOOR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. CHARIMAN, TALUK LAND BOARD, TALIPARAMABA.

¶11

2. TAHSILDAR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, TALIPARAMBA.

¶12

3. STATE OF KERALA,

¶13

REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

4. ABUBACKER, S/O. THERUVANDAKATHU AHAMMEDKUTTY, MANNANTAKATHU HOUSE, CHORKALA, P.O. KURUMATHOOR, TALIPARAMABA TALUK, KANNUR.

¶15

5. PATHUMMA,

¶16

D/O. THERUVANDAKATHU AHAMMEDKUTTY, MANNANTAKATHU HOUSE, CHORKALA, P.O. KURUMATHOOR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR.

¶17

6. KUNHAMINA, D/O. THERUVANDAKATHU AHAMMEDKUTTY, MANNANTAKATHU HOUSE, CHORKALA, P.O. KURUMATHOOR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR.

¶18

--2--

¶19

--2--

¶20

WP(C).No. 4913 of 2006 (I)

¶21

7. MOHAMMED KUNHI, S/O.THERUVANDAKATHU AHAMMEDKUTTY, MANNANTAKATHU HOUSE, CHORKALA, P.O. KURUMATHOOR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR.

¶22

8. MUSTHAFA, S/O.THERUVANDAKATHU AHAMMEDKUTTY, MANNANTHAKATHU HOUSE, CHORKALA, P.O.KURUMATHOOR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR.

¶23

9. NABEESA, D/O.THERUVANDAKATHU AHAMMEDKUTTY, MANNANTHAKATHU HOUSE, CHORKALA, P.O.KURUMATHOOR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR.

¶24

10. MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O.THERUVANDAKATHU AHAMMEDKUTTY, MANNANTHAKATHU HOUSE, CHORKALA, P.O.KURUMATHOOR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR.

¶25

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MANOJ KUNJACHAN R4 TO R10 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

mbr/

¶28

WP(C).No. 4913 of 2006 (I)

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXT. P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 4.5.2000 TO THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 4 TO 9.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶37

***************************************************************************** W.P.(C) No.4913 of 2006

¶38

****************************************************************************** Dated this the 4^th day of February, 2016

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking

¶41

following reliefs:

¶42

i. issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 3 to prepare a plan and mahazar of the property ordered to be surrendered by petitioner and respondents 4 to 9 as per Ext.P1 order after giving an option to the petitioner and respondents 4 to 9 to chose the location of land to be surrendered and to demarcate the land to be surrendered;

¶43

b. call for the records leading to the alleged taking possession of the land by respondents 1 to 3 from petitioner and respondents 4 to 9 in pursuance of Ext.P1 order and quash the same if possession is taken by respondents 1 to 3.

¶44

W.P.(C) No.4913 of 2006 2

¶45

The petitioner is the legal heir of one Ahammed

¶46

Kutty Haji. Ahammed Kutty Haji purchased certain extent of

¶47

land from the declarant under the ceiling proceedings initiated

¶48

under the Land Reforms Act. The ceiling proceedings have attained finality.

¶49

Thereafter, by Ext.P1 proceedings of the Taluk Land Board, the Taluk Land Board directed the declarant/assignee to surrender an extent of 21.73 acres of land in Re-survey Nos.44 and 76/1 of Kurumathoor Village.

¶50

The petitioner claims that in the light of Ext.P1,

¶51

the respondents shall be directed to give an option to the petitioner and choose location of the land to be surrendered.

¶52

Essentially, the petitioner is not challenging

¶53

Ext.P1. On the other hand, the petitioner wants to demarcate

¶54

W.P.(C) No.4913 of 2006 3

¶55

the land to be surrendered by him.

¶56

In this matter, a counter affidavit has been filed

¶57

by the first respondent. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the counter

¶58

affidavit stated as follows:

¶59

“Government has taken possession of the land after preparing the sketch, Mahazar and Form 12. As described in the plaint only 7.24 Acres have been taken possession. The interested parties have been asked to point out the respective plots which they are willing to surrender. But they turned a deaf ear to the notice issued by the respondents. Hence the land was assumed possession on 21.5.2005.

¶60

The land has been taken possession after completing all the legal formalities as described in KLR Act. The Sketch, Mahazar and Form No.12 have been prepared and only after that the land has been taken possession. The land is vested with Government ever since they take over of the land. And it is not held by the

¶61

W.P.(C) No.4913 of 2006 4

¶62

petitioner and others as alleged in the plaint. This argument of the petitioner is not correct. The Taluk Land Board has authorized the Tahsildar, Taliparamba as per Rule 18 of KLR (Ceiling) Rules to take possession of the land and not the Authorised Officer to take possession of the land. Before taking possession of the land, the Sketch, Mahazar and Form 12 have been prepared and with these records the site has been inspected and taken possession of the land.”

¶63

The counter affidavit would show that the

¶64

Government has already taken possession of the land after preparing the sketch, mahazar and Form 12.

¶65

In the light of the above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition as Ext.P1 has already been implemented. If the petitioner has any surviving cause of action, he is free to approach the Taluk Land Board. If the petitioner approaches

¶66

W.P.(C) No.4913 of 2006 5

¶67

the Taluk Land Board and if there is no impediment for the Taluk Land Board for giving an option to the petitioner, the

¶68

Taluk Land Board shall consider the request of the petitioner to

¶69

give the option in accordance with law.

¶70

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶73

Assainar.M. v. Chariman, Taluk Land Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Assainar.M. v. Chariman, Taluk Land Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.K.Abraham Vs State of Kerala

C.v.Jayadas Vs State of Kerala

K.Sadanandan Vs N.Shekharan Nair

V.P.Ajith Vs the Tahsildar, Devikulam

Vineeth K.V. Vs the Kerala Sangeetha Nadaka Academy

S.Gopalakrishnan Nair Vs K.W..a.