Allowed

Rateesh v. Village Officer

Kerala HC22 Jun 2017WP(C)/8496/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench heard a writ petition challenging a mutation issue. Relied on a previous apex/MLC decision, the court directed respondents to effect mutation in favor of the petitioner, reserving the right of competent authorities to initiate proceedings under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents 1 and 2 to effect mutation in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1.

Rateesh Vs Village Officer — 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

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2017/1ST ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 8496 of 2017 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RATEESH,

¶8

AGE 28 YEARS, S/O.RAJU, ADUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KUMBALERI P.O., MEENANGADI (VIA), WAYANAD.

¶9

BY ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1. VILLAGE OFFICER, MUTTIL (NORTH), MUTTIL P.O., KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673 122.

¶12

2. TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673 122.

¶13

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, WAYANAD-673 122.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SURIN GEORGE IYPE

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

WP(C).No. 8496 of 2017 (J)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONERS'	EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.2854/2015 OF SRO KALPETTA.
EXHIBIT P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED NO.1939/12, EXECUTED BY SMT.K.P.GEETHAMANI IN FAVOUR OF SRI.MOIDEEN
EXHIBIT P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 20/6/2015, IN FAVOUR OF SRI.MOIDEEN.
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 14/7/2015.
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER.
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE COPY OF FORM NO.1 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 4/12/2015.
EXHIBIT P8:	TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 11/1/2017.
RESPONDENTS'	EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

P.B. SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶24

W.P.(C) No.8496 of 2017

¶25

Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2017

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The issue raised in this writ petition is covered in

¶28

favour of the petitioner by the decision of this Court in Rappai v. State of Kerala [2014(4) KLT 602].

¶29

In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to effect mutation in respect of the property covered by Ext.P1 document as sought by the petitioner. It is, however, made clear that this judgment will not preclude the competent authority under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008 from proceeding against the property, if proceedings are contemplated and permissible against the property of the petitioner under the said statute.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

P.B. SURESH KUMAR JUDGE

¶32

bpr

Rateesh v. Village Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rateesh v. Village 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

Gangadharan Vs Ashok Kumar

Sreekuttan A.V Vs Srinivas B.

Abdul Rasack. v Vs District Collector

Kunhimohammed Vs Suma

Rajesh Kumar Ov. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Anuja Varghese Vs Central Board of Higher Secondary Education