Disposed

B.Radha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jun 2017WP(C)/20254/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for relief against alleged inaction of the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding a representation to rectify land tax records showing reduced property extent. The court directed the officer to decide the matter within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

The second respondent is directed to take a decision on the petitioner's representation for rectification of mistakes in revenue records within six weeks of receipt of this judgment.

B.Radha Vs 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

TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/30TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 20254 of 2017 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

B.RADHA, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O LATE ARJUNAN NADAR, KUZHIVILA SANKARAVILASAM, POONKULAM, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 522.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶9

SRI.M.S.KALESH SMT.R.BINDU SRI.HARISH GOPINATH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.

¶12

2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KUDAPPANANUKKUNNU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 043.

¶13

3. ADDITIONAL THAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.

¶14

4. VILLAGE OFFICER, KALLIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 042.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

WP(C).No. 20254 of 2017 (F)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.4410/1961 OF ADDITIONAL SRO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO.47/1988 OF ADDITIONAL SRO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER, KALLIYOOR VILLAGE. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.396802 OF 2005, ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.H6/17060/13, DATED 06.02.2013, FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 23.03.2013 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶29

-------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.20254 of 2017

¶30

---------------------------------------------------------------

¶31

Dated this the 20^th day of June, 2017

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

The father-in-law of the petitioner held 56.40 ares of property in resurvey No.368/10 of Kalliyoor Village. On the death of the father-in-law of the petitioner, the property devolved on the husband of the petitioner and on the death of the husband of the petitioner, the property devolved on the petitioner and she is in possession of the same. According to the petitioner, when she approached the Village Officer for remitting land tax, she was informed that the extent of property available in the revenue records is only 21.10 ares. The petitioner, therefore,

¶34

W.P.(c).No.20254 of 2017 : 2 :

¶35

preferred Ext.P5 representation before the third respondent for rectification of the mistake. It is stated by the petitioner that Ext.P5 representation has been forwarded by the third respondent to the second respondent. It is also stated by the petitioner that on a reference by the second respondent, the third respondent has forwarded Ext.P6 report. In Ext.P6 report, it is stated that the extent of property originally held by the father-in-law of the petitioner is reduced in the revenue records on account of the mistakes committed by the revenue officials while effecting mutation of the other properties. The grievance of the petitioner concerns the inaction on the part of the second respondent on taking a decision on Ext.P5 representation in the light of Ext.P6 report.

¶36

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

¶37

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to take a decision on Ext.P5

¶38

W.P.(c).No.20254 of 2017

¶39

: 3 :

¶40

representation preferred by the petitioner for rectification of the mistaken in the revenue records, in the light of Ext.P6 report. This shall be done within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶42

rsr

B.Radha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Radha v. State of Kerala

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

Kunhimuhammed Vs State of Kerala

Basheer E Vs the Land Tribunal

Prakashan P.K. Vs Child Welfare Committee (Cwc)

R. Ananthapadmanaban Vs Bank of India

P.Anoop Vaidyan Vs the State of Kerala

Padmanaban Vs the Sub Registrar, Ponnani