Dismissed

Albin Antony v. State of Kerala and 2 Others

Kerala HC10 Nov 2016WP(C)/5300/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding land assignment for homestead, the Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge. The Court noted the petition was liable to be dismissed as the petitioner failed to apply for ratification of the possession certificate within the stipulated time, mandating eviction only after following due process of law.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner shall be evicted following proper legal procedure.

Albin Antony Vs State of Kerala and 2 Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/19TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5300 of 2007 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

ALBIN ANTONY, S/O.THOMAS RESIDING AT 1800, 9, KUTTY MASTRY LANE,COLONY ROAD, MUNNAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE C.VARGHESE

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. COLLECTORATE, KUYILIMALA, IDUKKI.

¶12

3. TAHSILDAR,DEVIKULAM TALUK,DEVIKULAM IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENER GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINEETHA HARIRAJ

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

msv/

¶16

WP(C).No. 5300 of 2007 (E)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE VOTERS IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY ELECTION COMMISSION.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KANNAN DEVAN HILLS.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF SKETCH ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF RATION CARD.

¶23

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE NO.31/2001 DTD.7.12.2001 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM.

¶24

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.1638/A2 DTD.1.2.96 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.6.9.72 BEARING NO.G-4-814.

¶26

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF REPLY TO EXT.P6 DTD.18.8.74 BEARING NO.6053/U2/73/RD

¶27

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DTD.23.1.2007 IN WPC.NO.2644/07 OF ISSUED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

msv/

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶34

===================== W.P.(C) No.5300 of 2007 - E

¶35

======================

¶36

Dated this the 10^th day of November, 2016

¶37

J U D G M E N T

¶38

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition contending that he is in possession of certain properties, the assignment of which was made as per Ext.P5. The petitioner also contended that the original proposal for assignment as per Ext.P3 was for 40 cents, while the assignment made is only by Ext.P5. At the out set, it is to be noticed that the petitioner claims assignment for construction of homestead.

¶39

As per the Kerala Land Assessment Rules, 1964,

¶40

land can be assigned for the purpose of personal cultivation, house site and beneficial enjoyment of adjoining property. There is also a limit prescribed for home site and beneficial enjoyment, which at the time when Ext.P5 was issued ie., in 2001 was 25

¶41

¶42

W.P.(C) No.5300 of 2007 - E

¶43

cents, which was later amended in 2005 to 15 cents. This Court specifically notices the same since by interim order dated 19.02.2007, when the eviction of the petitioner was interdicted, there was also a direction to the respondents to file an affidavit stating as to how 25 cents was assigned in Ext.P5, when Ext.P3 plan shows a total extent of 40 cents. It has to be noticed going by the provisions of the Rules, there could not have been an assignment over 25 cents and hence that question no longer survives.

¶44

A counter affidavit is filed by the State calling in question the genuineness of Ext.P5 patta. It is contended that Exts.P5 and P2 said to have been issued by the Tahsildar and the Village Officer respectively are bogus documents. The certificate issued at Ext.P2 is with respect to the possession of the petitioner over 4 cents of land, which in itself is said to be an encroachment. The further attempt made by the petitioner is to obtain further lands by reliance on a bogus patta, produced at

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C) No.5300 of 2007 - E

¶47

Ext.P5. It is categorically stated that there is no assignment in favour of the petitioner as per L.A No.31-2001 and no application for assignment is pending with the Collector.

¶48

The District Collector, Idukki as per the proceedings No.C2/40384/99 dated 16.08.2001 had directed all persons having possession certificate to apply to the District Collector within one month of the order for ratification. No such application is seen filed by the petitioner. It is also specifically stated in the affidavit filed by the Government that the eviction of the petitioner however would be following the procedure known to law.

¶49

In such circumstance, the writ petition would stand dismissed, however, making it clear that the petitioner shall be evicted only in accordance with law.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶52

SB/11/11/2016

¶53

// true copy //

¶54

P.A to Judge

Albin Antony v. State of Kerala and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Albin Antony v. State of Kerala and 2 Others

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

Suja John Vs Mohandas

Mohammed Niyas Vs the Income Tax Commissioner

James K.Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Mynagapally Grama Panchayat Vs Kerala Lok Ayukta

Retnabhai Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram.

C.K.Poulose Vs the State of Kerala