Allowed

Rathnamma Gopalan v. Tahasildar, Manjeshwaram

Kerala HC7 Dec 2017WP(C)/25773/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the court directed the 1st respondent to pass consequential orders pursuant to the directions given in the orders of the Land Revenue Commissioner (Exts. P8 and P9) within two months from receipt of the judgment, addressing the delay in finalizing proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to pass consequential orders pursuant to Exts.P8 and P9 within two months of receipt of the judgment.

Rathnamma Gopalan Vs Tahasildar, Manjeshwaram — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 25773 of 2017 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RATHNAMMA GOPALAN., AGED 64 YEARS, W/O.(LATE)C.K. GOPALAN, RESIDING AT CHEMPAKULAM HOUSE, P.O.NALUKODY, CHENGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH

¶9

SRI.K.P.ANTONY BINU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. TAHASILDAR,

¶12

TALUK OFFICE, MANJESHWARAM,

¶13

P.O.MANJESHWARAM, KASARAGOD DISTRICT, 671323

¶14

2. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGAD, KANHANGAD PO, 671315

¶15

3. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER SECRETARITAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001

¶16

*4. JAYARAMA NAIK., S/O.(LATE) SANKARAPPA NAIK, RESIDING AT BELEPUNNI, PATHUR VILLAGE & POST, KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671323(DELETED)

¶17

***(THE 4TH RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 07/12/2017 IN IA NO. 18538/2017)**

¶18

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAN

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED

¶20

THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

sdr/-

¶22

WP(C).No. 25773 of 2017 (V)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶25

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 25.08.1973

¶26

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST LETTER DATED 25.08.1973

¶27

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 15.07.1977 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.03.1974 UNDER RULE 12 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT ORDER IN LA.NO. 60/75/PATHUR DATED 08.12.1975 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICIAL LETTER DATED 30.12.1975 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED ON 10.01.1978 EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.12.1996 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.03.1999 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.12.2013 BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶28

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

sdr/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶33

................................................................... W.P.(C).No.25773 Of 2017 (V)

¶34

..................................................................... Dated this the 7^th day of December, 2017

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the 1^st respondent to finalise the proceedings in LA 600/75/Pathur pursuant to the directions given in Exts.P5, P7 and P8 orders expeditiously.

¶37

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶38

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find that despite the passing of Ext.P8 order, which was affirmed by the Land Revenue Commissioner in Ext.P9 order, the 1^st respondent has not passed any consequential order as directed in the aforesaid orders. Ext.P9 order was passed as early as in 04.03.1999 and the delay in passing consequential orders cannot be legally countenanced. Accordingly, I dispose the writ petition by directing the 1^st

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C).No.25773 Of 2017 (V)

¶41

respondent to pass consequential orders pursuant to the directions in Exts.P8 and P9 orders of the Land Revenue Commissioner within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment, before the 1^st respondent, for further action.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶44

mns/07.12.17

Rathnamma Gopalan v. Tahasildar, Manjeshwaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathnamma Gopalan v. Tahasildar, Manjeshwaram

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

Rajive Paul Vs Tahasildar

Jaison Mathew Vs the State of Kerala

Jisha George Vs the State of Kerala

B.Suresh Babu Vs State of Kerala

Jithesh K S Vs Chottanikkara Grama Panchayath

Jayadevan Pillai Vs the Ranni Pazhavangadi Grama Panchayat