Disposed

Mr. Tomy Thomas v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2018WP(C)/23069/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition concerning agricultural land rights, the Court ordered the competent authority to consider the petitioner's representation within a reasonable time frame. A strict deadline of three months was fixed for a decision. The Court also deferred corresponding proceedings by the 3rd respondent to preserve the subject matter.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the competent authority to consider the petitioner's request within three months, deferring subsequent proceedings to preserve the subject matter.

Mr. Tomy Thomas Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 23069 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MR. TOMY THOMAS, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, MUKKAT HOUSE, PULIKKALLU P.O., KARIKATTOOR, PIN - 686 544.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BABU CHERUKARA

¶9

SRI.P.A.SALIM

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM - 686 002. 3. THE TAHASILDAR KANJIRAPPALLY, SURVEY, TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, KANJIRAPPALLY - 686 555, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 4. THE ADDL. TAHASILDAR KANJIRAPPALLY (RE SURVEY), TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION, KANJIRAPPALLY - 686 555, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 5. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANIMALA VILLAGE, MANIMALA P.O., PIN - 686 544, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 6. JAMES JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O.MANI JOSEPH, MALAYAPPALLIL HOUSE, NOW RESIDING AT MALAYAPPALLIL HOUSE, KARIKKATTOOR P.O., PIN - 686 544, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. R1 TO R5 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/

¶12

WP(C).No. 23069 of 2018 (G)

¶13

APPENDIX

¶14

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶15

EXHIBIT P1.	TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR KANJIRAPPALLY DATED 17.03.1979.
EXHIBIT P2.	TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.55/1981 OF MALLAPPALLY S.R.O. DATED 06.01.1981.
EXHIBIT P3.	TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1243/1989 OF ERUMELI S.R.O. DATED 10.07.1989.
EXHIBIT P4.	TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICE, MANIMALA, DATED 22.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P5.	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, KOTTAYAM, DATED 06.04.2017.
EXHIBIT P6.	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.21443/2018 DATED 28.06.2018.
EXHIBIT P7.	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 11.10.2017.
EXHIBIT P8.	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 05.06.2018.
EXHIBIT P9.	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 27.06.2018.
EXHIBIT P10.	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEARING NO.H2-4695/18.
EXHIBIT P11.	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 5.7.2018 BEARING NO.H5-3168/17.

¶16

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

mbr/ 18.07.2018.

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶21

==================

¶22

W.P.(C).No. 23069 of 2018

¶23

==================

¶24

Dated this the 12^th day of July, 2018

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

The prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows:

¶27

“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or order directing the respondents 4 & 5 to consider Exhibit P-9 within a time frame as stipulated by this hon'ble court and prohibit the 3^rd respondent from proceeding with Exhibit P-8.

¶28

(b) issue any other orders as this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶29

Heard Sri.Babu Cherukara, learned counsel appearing for

¶30

the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 to 5. In the nature of the order that is proposed to be passed in this petition, notice to the 6^th respondent will stand dispensed with.

¶31

When the matter had come up for consideration on 11.7.2018, this Court had requested the learned Senior Govt. Pleader to get specific instructions from the competent authorities among the official respondents on the limited prayers made by the petitioner for consideration and disposal of Ext.P-9 petition and to keep in abeyance Ext.P-8, until orders are passed on Ext.P-9, etc.

¶32

Today, when the matter has been taken up for

¶33

W.P.(C).23069/18 - : 2 :-

¶34

consideration, Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for official respondents 1 to 5 would submit on the basis of the instructions that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C).No. 37520/ 2015 dated 10.12.2015 steps have been taken by the competent Revenue and Survey official so as to conduct survey to demarcate the puramboke land in question, etc. The matter in relation to Ext.P-9 was adjourned by the 3^rd /4^th respondent as per Ext.P-11 proceedings as discernible from Ext.P-11 proceedings dated.5.7.2018.

¶35

In the light of the abovesaid aspects, it is ordered that the competent authority among official respondents 3 and 4 will take up for consideration the request of the petitioner contained Ext.P-9 and after taking necessary steps in that regard, will render a considered decision thereon after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, R-6 and other affected parties, if any. Before taking a decision on the request contained in Ext.P-9, the competent authority among the respondents will ensure that a proper survey of the property is effected, after due notice to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any. The decision in that regard should be rendered by the competent authority among respondents 3 and 4 within two months, at any rate, within an outer time limit of three

¶36

W.P.(C).23069/18 - : 3 :-

¶37

months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. Further, in the interest of justice it is ordered solely for the purpose the preservation of the subject matter of lis that further steps in relation to Ext.P-8 proceedings will stand deferred.

¶38

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶39

sdk+

¶40

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶41

///True Copy///

¶42

P.S. to Judge

Mr. Tomy Thomas v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Tomy Thomas v. the State of Kerala

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

M.V Francis Oommen Vs State of Kerala

Deepthy Joy Vs the District Collector, Wayanad

Aleyamma Johnson Vs the Land Tribunal

Prabhavathy K Vs the District Registrar

Kunjeethu Vs the Land Tribunal Tirur

Ezhuthuveettil Padmakshi Vs the District Collector ,Kannur