Disposed

S.K.Sharma v. Taluk Land Board, Fortcochin, Represented by Its Chairman

Kerala HC7 Feb 2017WP(C)/981/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions to statutory authorities to dispose of pending applications for consideration of title to his property. The court directed authorities to consider pending applications for issuance of title certificate with right to audience.

What did the court decide?

Directed 1st respondent to consider Ext.P6 and 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P7, providing opportunity of hearing, and attain finality within four months of receipt of this judgment's copy.

S.K.Sharma Vs Taluk Land Board, Fortcochin, Represented by… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017/18TH MAGHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 981 of 2017 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

S.K.SHARMA,

¶8

S/O.LATE RAMSWARUP SHARMA, RESIDING AT 27/2925, KADAVANTHARA P.O., KOCHI-682 020

¶9

BY SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SRI.S.SUJIN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. TALUK LAND BOARD, FORTCOCHIN, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORTCOCHIN-682 001

¶12

2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, LAND TRIBUNAL, TRIPUNITHURA-682 301

¶13

*3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶14

TRIPUNITHURA-682 301

¶15

4. THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF KOCHI, CORPORATION OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 012

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN R4 BY ADV. SMT.P.LISSY JOSE,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,SC,COCHIN CORPORATION

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-02-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

*THE ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT 3, ie ''THE VILLAGE OFFICER, TRIPUNITHURA-682 301'' IS CORRECTED AND SUBSTITUTED AS ''THE VILLAGE OFFICER, POONITHURA (VYTTILA),PIN-682 019'' AS PER ORDER DATED 07/03/2017 IN IA.NO.3643/2017.

¶19

SD/- ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶20

sts

¶21

WP(C).No. 981 of 2017 (W)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.461/2013 DATED 11.2.2013 OF SRO MARADU
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2859/2006 DATED 16.6.2006 OF SRO MARADU
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1628/1999 OF SRO MARADU DATED 6.5.1999
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.2241/1993 OF SRO MARADU DATED 3.6.1993
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.1.2015 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 26.12.2016 BEFORE THE TALUK LAND BOARD, FORTCOCHIN
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION U/S.106B OF THE K ACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL TRIPUNITHURA DATED 26.12.2016
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 85(8) OF THE KLR ACT ALONG WITH THE ENDORSEMENT OF THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER FOR RECEIPT OF EXT.P6
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 106B OF THE KLR ACT ALONG WITH THE ENDORSEMENT FOR RECEIPT THERE OF BY THE LAND TRIBUNAL

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶30

W.P.(C)No. 981 of 2017

¶31

Dated this the 7^th day of February, 2017

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Petitioner is having 2.5 cents of land and building purchased by him evident from Ext.P1, the same was obtained by the seller through another document from 3^rd party and that was 2^nd or 3^rd sale from the declarant. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the proceedings before the Taluk Land Board wherein the original owner was a declarant and there was an order to surrender the property including petitioner's property as excess land. Thereupon, petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 application under Section 85(8) before the 1^st respondent, and Ext.P7 application before the 2^nd respondent seeking issuance of title certificate, under Section 106, of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. Both these applications

¶34

are pending consideration and petitioner seeks appropriate direction to the said statutory authority to attain finality to the same.

¶35

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶36

learned Government Pleader and learned Standing Counsel

¶37

W.P.(C)No. 981 of 2017 2

¶38

appearing for the 4^th respondent. I think it is only appropriate

¶39

that requisite directions are issued to the respective statutory authorities to attain finality to Exts.P6 and P7. In that view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 1^st respondent to take on board Ext.P6 and consider the same in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or any other interested or affected persons and attain finality within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Likewise the 2^nd respondent shall take on board Ext.P7 and consider the same in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or any other interested or affected persons and attain finality within four months.

¶40

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶41

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶42

rmm/7/2/2017

S.K.Sharma v. Taluk Land Board, Fortcochin, Represented by Its Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.K.Sharma v. Taluk Land Board, Fortcochin, Represented by Its Chairman

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

K.Sreekumar Vs K.R.Jyothilal

Peggy Shaju Vs S.Venkiteshpathi

Kannur Jill Thuramugha Thozhilali Kshema Sahakarana Sangham Ltd. Vs Ajith Patil

G.Soman Vs Mr.H.Venkitesh

R.Vijayan Vs District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Koshy Philip @ Padinjattedathu Koshy Philip Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer