Remanded

C.N.Kesavan & Others v. the District Collector & Another

Kerala HC5 Dec 2016WP(C)/5005/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned the allotment of excess land held by the Government. Petitioners paid dues but faced denial due to a pending vigilance enquiry. The Court directed assignment be considered by authorities in accordance with law after the vigilance records were transferred to Revenue.

What did the court decide?

The assignment shall be considered in accordance with law.

C.N.Kesavan & Others Vs the District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5005 of 2007 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. C.N. KESAVAN, CHITHRAKUNNEL, THENGAKKAL P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

2. RAJU CHANDY, VELAMPARAMBIL, THENGAKKAL P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶9

3. P.C. JOSEPH, PUTHANPURACKAL THENGAKKAL P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

4. JOSEPH MATHEW, CHARAMKUZHI, MAMALA, VANDIPERIYAR, THENGAKKAL P.O.

¶11

5. P.C. PAPPACHAN, PALAKKAL, THENGAKKAL P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶12

6. JOHN JOSEPH, POOVATHOTTATHIL, THENGAKKAL P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.

¶16

2. THE TAHSILDAR, PEERUMEDU.

¶17

3. VILLAGE OFFICER, MANJUMALA.

¶18

ADDL.R4 TO R7 IMPLEADED

¶19

4. M.KANAKARAJ, POTTAKKAL VILLAGE, MLAMALA, THENGAKKAL P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶20

5. E.N.SUKUMARAN, ETTIKAL HOUSE, THENGAKKAL P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶21

6. RAMANI AJAYAN, ELAMPALLI VEEDU, MIRILLADY, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

.....2/-

..2..

WP(C).No. 5005 of 2007 (U)

¶26

7. JESSY, W/O.CHELLADURAI, MOUNT ESTATE MOUNT.

¶27

ADDL.R4 TO R7 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 15/1/2010 IN IA.NO.462/2010.

¶28

R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINEETHA HARIRAJ R4-7 BY ADV. SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

¶31

WP(C).No. 5005 of 2007 (U)

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶34

P1: COPY OF THE OFFER OF ASSIGNMENT, ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER

¶35

P2: COPY OF THE OFFER OF ASSIGNMENT, ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶36

P3: COPY OF THE OFFER OF ASSIGNMENT, ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER

¶37

P4: COPY OF THE OFFER OF ASSIGNMENT, ISSUED TO THE 4TH PETITIONER

¶38

P5: COPY OF THE OFFER OF ASSIGNMENT, ISSUED TO THE 5TH PETITIONER

¶39

P6: COPY OF THE OFFER OF ASSIGNMENT, ISSUED TO THE 6TH PETITIONER

¶40

P7: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31/12/86 ISSUED T THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶41

P8: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8/2/87 ISSUED T THE 5TH PETITIONER

¶42

P9: COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5/7/04 ISSUED T THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶43

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶49

-----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 5005 of 2007 (U)

¶50

-----------------------------------------Dated: 5^th December, 2016

¶51

J U D G M E N T

¶52

The petitioners were offered assignment of various extent of land on payment of an amount of Rs.400/-, out of a total extent of 1026 acres of land, taken possession by the Government as excess land. The petitioners paid the purchase price, but, however were not granted assignment for reason of a vigilance enquiry carried on.

¶53

A similar writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 31.07.2013 in W.P.(C) No.7243/2007. Therein, the Senior Government Pleader had submitted that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau, Idukki Unit, vide letter dated 29.07.2013 informed that the entire records connected with the enquiry have been handed over to the Revenue

¶54

W.P.(C) No. 5005/2007

¶55

-2-

¶56

Department and Junior Superintendent, Taluk Office, Peerumedu, has accepted the entire records vide an acknowledgment receipt dated 01.03.2000. In such circumstance, this Court directed the assignment to be considered in accordance with law.

¶57

There shall be a similar direction in the above writ petition also. The assignment shall be considered in accordance with law, but, however, it is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on the claim of assignment raised by the petitioners. No Costs.

¶58

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶59

jjj 7/12/16

C.N.Kesavan & Others v. the District Collector & Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.N.Kesavan & Others v. the District Collector & Another

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

Dr.K.R.Jayapal Vs Trivandrum Corporation

Apsara A.P Vs the State of Kerala

Elsy Mathai Vs State of Kerala

M.a.Jose Vs K.v.Shaji

E.Jayachandran Vs Sri.Arif Lohani

Nishad K.R. Vs Ajith Patel IAS