Disposed

Doney Varghese v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Jul 2017WP(C)/10537/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging mutation orders, the High Court disposed of the matter without adverting to the fundamental defect regarding the revision process. The Court permitted the petitioner to prefer a revision petition before the District Collector within two weeks and directed the Collector to dispose of the same within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to the petitioner to prefer a revision petition before the District Collector within two weeks; District Collector directed to dispose of the revision within four weeks thereafter.

Doney Varghese Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JULY 2017/2ND SRAVANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 10537 of 2017 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

DONEY VARGHESE,

¶8

S/O LATE VARKEY, AGED:62 YEARS, MANKIDIYIL HOUSE, KAKKAD, PIRAVOM-686 664.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.MANOJ, SMT.SINDHU MANOJ.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF REVENUE AND LAND, STATE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.

¶12

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD-682 037.

¶13

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA - 686 661.

¶14

4. THE TAHSILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 661.

¶15

5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANEED VILLAGE, PIRAVOM, MUVATTUPUZHA-686 664.

¶16

BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rs.

¶19

WP(C).No. 10537 of 2017 (N)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1340/2005 DATED 09/05/2005. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22/06/2012 OF THE TAHSILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM DATED 22/02/2013.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 06/11/2013.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN C.P.18/1999, 15/2013 AND 54/2002 DATED 07/08/2013.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA DISMISSING EXHIBIT P2 APPEAL DATED 27/03/2016.

¶27

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM TO THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, MUVATTUPUZHA DATED 19/11/2016.

¶28

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, DATED 31/10/2016.

¶29

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2462/1971 DATED 28/10/1971.

¶30

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶35

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

¶36

W.P.(C).No.10537 of 2017-N.

¶37

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24^th day of July, 2017.

¶38

J U D G M E N T

¶39

Mutation in favour of the petitioner in respect of the property referred to in the writ petition has been cancelled by the fourth respondent as per Ext.P2 order. Though the petitioner took up the matter in appeal before the third respondent, Ext.P2 order has been confirmed by the third respondent as per Ext.P6 order. Exts.P2 and P6 orders are under challenge in this writ petition.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶41

It is seen that after Ext.P6 order, the District Collector has issued Ext.P7 communication to the fourth respondent concerning the mutation sought by the petitioner. It is, however, not clear from Ext.P7 communication as to whether the petitioner has challenged Ext.P6 order in revision before the District Collector as provided for under Rule 18(iv) of the

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C).No.10537/2017-N.

¶44

Transfer of Registry Rules.

¶45

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prefer a revision petition challenging Ext.P6 order before the District Collector as provided for under Rule 18(iv) of the Transfer of Registry Rules, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is also directed that if a revision petition is preferred by the petitioner as directed above, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the District Collector, within four weeks thereafter.

¶46

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.

¶47

Kvs/-

¶48

// true copy //

Doney Varghese v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Doney Varghese v. the State of Kerala

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

Manoj S.Viswam Vs M.G.Rajamanykyam

C.Premarajan Vs Sri.M G Rajamanikiam

N.G.Lalu Vs Rajamanikyam

V.M. Jose Vs State of Kerala

Veni Vs the State of Kerala

Beeran Haji Vs the Special Tahsildar