Disposed

C.Rajan v. the Tahsildar

Kerala HC1 Aug 2018WP(C)/19089/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the petitioner to file written objections against the 3rd respondent's application for survey of property before the 1st respondent within two weeks. Further steps depend on the first respondent's decision after hearing both sides.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file written objections before 1st respondent within two weeks; 1st respondent to decide after hearing parties before taking further steps.

C.Rajan Vs the Tahsildar — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 19089 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

C.RAJAN, S/O.CHELLAN, AGED 59 YEARS, SECRETARY, MARUTHI BHAGAVATHI KSHETHRAM COMMITTEE, ETHANUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678 502.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SRI.M.R.MANIKANTAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE TAHSILDAR,

¶11

TALUK OFFICE, CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678 101.

¶12

2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶13

KODUVAYUR II VILLAGE, KODUVAYUR P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678 501.

¶14

3. PRESIDENT,

¶15

ETHANUR MUTHALIYAR SAMUDAYAM, MUTHALIYARTHARA, ETHANUR P.O.,

¶16

PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 678 502.

¶17

R1-R2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SAIGI JACOB PALATTY R3 BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-08-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

RVS.

¶20

WP(C).No. 19089 of 2018 (I)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶23

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTIES.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LATEST LAND TAX RECEIPT.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 20.03.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY ONE GURUVAYOORAPPAN A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE.
EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 14.11.1996.
EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.05.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE COMMITTEE BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

RESPONDENT (S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL. /TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

RVS. 09/08/2017

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶29

W.P.(C)No.19089 of 2018

¶30

Dated this the 01^st day of August, 2018

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The prayers in this writ petition (civil) are as follows:-

¶33

“i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or other appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions to call for the records leading up to Exhibits P-3 and P-7 and to quash the same in the interest of justice;

¶34

ii. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writs, Orders or Directions commanding the 1^st respondent to postpone the steps to be taken on the basis of Exhibits P-3 and P-7 notices for a period of two months so as to enable them to take further steps to challenge the purchase certificate issued to the 3^rd respondent;

¶35

iii Issue a writ to declare that the 3^rd respondent is not having any property in the survey numbers 287/4, 287/5 and 287/6 of Koduvayur II village and the request sought for cannot be granted;

¶36

iv. Render such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶37

Heard Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, learned counsel

¶38

appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.V.A.Johnson (Varikkappallil) , learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.3.

¶39

W.P.(C)No.19089 of 2018

¶40

..2..

¶41

The petitioner has now received the impugned Ext.P3 notice dated 20.3.2018 and Ext.P7 notice dated 29.5.2018 issued by the 1^st respondent Tahsildar, on the application filed by the 3^rd respondent for survey and measurement of the property of the 3^rd respondent. According to the petitioner, the 3^rd respondent has no such property as claimed in his application and that therefore his application itself is not maintainable and that therefore there is no question of conducting any survey and measurement as sought for by the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner’s counsel would now submit that the petitioner has been advised to file a detailed written objections before the 1^st respondent with copy to the 3^rd respondent detailing out his objections as against the application made by the 3^rd respondent for survey and measurement of the property as referred to in Exts.P3 and P7 and that if such an application is filed this Court may direct the 1^st respondent to consider and dispose of that objection after hearing both sides before taking further steps on the application of the 3^rd respondent. Accordingly it is ordered that it is for the petitioner to file written objections as against the

¶42

..3..

¶43

W.P.(C)No.19089 of 2018

¶44

afore-said application of the 3^rd respondent before the 1^st respondent within two weeks from the date notified for receiving a certified copy of this judgment. Along with said written objection the petitioner may also submit a certified copy of this judgment before the 1^st respondent. An advance copy of his written objection as afore-stated would also be furnished by the petitioner to the 3^rd respondent. Thereafter the 1^st respondent will issue notice of hearing to both sides and after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent may take a considered decision on the above said objection of the petitioner. Decision in that regard to be rendered within two weeks from the date of hearing of the parties as afore-stated. It is further ordered that only after taking a decision on the above said objection of the petitioner by the 1^st respondent as afore-stated, should further steps be taken on the application of the 3^rd respondent. However it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not file the written objections as afore-stated within the aforementioned time limit, then the aforesaid directions will stand

¶45

W.P.(C)No.19089 of 2018

¶46

..4..

¶47

automatically vacated without any further orders from this Court.

¶48

With these observations and directions this writ petition

¶49

(civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶52

skj

C.Rajan v. the Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Rajan v. the Tahsildar

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

Preethi M.K Vs the Presiding Officer

Kannoth Krishnan Vs the Union of India

Kelothu Valappil Kunhathi Vs Union of India

P.K.Fathimakutty Vs State of Kerala

Fazil A.M. Vs the Central Board of Secondary Education

Rajesh Vs the Land Tribunal, Tirur