Quashed

Soman Karunakaran v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC6 Nov 2017WP(C)/27345/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application for possession due to an error in survey number. The court directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to reconsider the application within one month, considering the petitioner's possession certificate and relevant precedents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order Ext.P9 quashed; Fresh decision required by Respondent I within one month on Ext.P9 application.

Soman Karunakaran Vs Revenue Divisional Officer — Landlord and Tenant | 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 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017/15TH KARTHIKA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 27345 of 2017 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SOMAN KARUNAKARAN AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.LATE KARUNAKARAN, 'SOPANAM', 30/928 B, KOVOOR MLA ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 008, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDERS, (1) SHIBU SOMAN AND (2) SHINE SOMAN, "SOPANAM" HOUSE, KOVOOR P.O., KOZHIKODE-673 008.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER KOZHIKODE-673 001.

¶11

2. KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032.

¶12

3. THE SECRETARY KOZHIKODE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE-673 032.

¶13

R1 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI. SANTHOSH PETER R2 & R3, BY SRI.K.D.BABU,SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-11-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 27345 of 2017 (P)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

------- EXHIBIT	------- P1	------ TRUE ISSUE	--- COPY OF OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE DATED 1-11-2009 D BY RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT	P2	TRUE PROPE	COPY OF THE RECEIPT EVIDENCING PAYMENT OF RTY TAX FOR THE PERIOD 2015-2016.
EXHIBIT	P3	TRUE	COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 23-1-2016.
EXHIBIT	P4	TRUE	COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 3-8-2016.
EXHIBIT	P5	TRUE PROPE	PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE LIE AND NATURE OF THE RTY.
EXHIBIT	P6	TRUE	COPY OF ORDER OF REJECTION DATED 27-12-2016.
EXHIBIT	P7	TRUE	COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 10-4-2017 IN WP(C)36/2017.
EXHIBIT	P8	TRUE MONIT	COPY OF ORDER DATED 3-5-2017 PASSED BY THE LOCAL ORING COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT	P9	TRUE	COPY OF ORDER DATED 27-5-2017.
EXHIBIT	P10	TRUE 15-5-	COPY OF RELEVANT PORTION OF THE RECEIPT DATED 2017.
EXHIBIT	P11	TRUE SELF	COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.994733/RA1/2016/LOCAL GOVT. DATED 22-12-2016.
EXHIBIT	P12	TRUE 1-3-2	COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.13105/P1/2017 REV. DATED 017.
RESPOND	ENT(S)'	EXHIB	ITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶23

-------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.27345 of 2017

¶24

--------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of November, 2017

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

The issue raised by the petitioner in the writ petition is covered in favour of the petitioner by the decisions of this Court in Puthan Purakkal Joseph v. Sub Collector (2015(3) KLT 182) and Shivadasan v. Revenue Divisional Officer (2017 (3) KLT 822).

¶27

It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is a mistake as regards the survey number of the property in the title deed and that the correct survey number of the property can be found out from Ext.P4 possession certificate. The learned

¶28

W.P.(c).No.27345 of 2017 : 2 :

¶29

counsel, therefore, prayed for appropriate clarifications in this regard as well.

¶30

In the circumstances, the impugned order, Ext.P9, is quashed and the first respondent is directed to take a fresh decision on the application preferred by the petitioner as referred to in Ext.P9, in the light of the decisions in Puthan Purakkal Joseph (supra) and Shivadasan (supra). This shall be done within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say that while complying with the direction aforesaid, the first respondent shall certainly advert to Ext.P4 possession certificate also.

¶31

Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶32

rsr

Soman Karunakaran v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soman Karunakaran v. Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Valsamma Charles Vs Revenue Divisional Officer

S.J.Basic Homes Pvt. Ltd. Vs the District Collector

John Mathew Vs the Village Officer, Mylapra

K.a.Sebastian Vs the District Collector

Pramod Das Vs Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

Abdul Lathief, Vs State of Kerala