Dismissed

A.C.Koyakidavu v. Settlement Officer

Kerala HC23 Nov 2018WP(C)/34856/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ to direct respondent to comply with appellate order remanding rough patta proceedings. Court found an order complying with directions was already passed; dismissed petition directing petitioner to work out further remedies at law.

What did the court decide?

Order directing petitioner to work out remedies at law regarding the passed order; Writ petition dismissed.

A.C.Koyakidavu Vs Settlement Officer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

WP(C).No. 34856 of 2018

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶7

WP(C).No. 34856 of 2018

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

A.C.KOYAKIDAVU, AGED 75 YEARS, S/O. B.C. KADIRI, ASHRECHETTA HOUSE, KADMET ISLAND, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY SMT.K.BINCYMOL SMT.N.B.FATHIMA SULFATH SRI.K.S.SUMEESH

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 SETTLEMENT OFFICER, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, COLLECTORATE, KAVARATTI - 682 555.

¶13

2 ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICER, KADMAT ISLAND, U.T.OF LAKSHADWEEP-682 556.

¶14

BY ADV. MR.MANU S., SCGC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 34856 of 2018

¶17

-2-

¶18

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J .

¶19

W.P.(C).No.34856 of 2018

¶20

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2018.

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The main prayer in the Writ Petition (Civil)

¶23

is as follows:

¶24

“Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to comply with the directions in Ext.P2.”

¶25

2. Heard Sri.Joby Jacob Pulickekudy, learned

¶26

counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.Manu, learned Senior Central Government Counsel appearing for

¶27

the respondents.

¶28

3. In rough patta proceedings pending before the 2^nd respondent-Assistant Settlement Officer, the said officer has passed order granting patta to the person concerned. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned order, had preferred appeal before the 1^st respondent-Settlement Officer. The 1^st respondent-appellate authority has passed Ext.P-2 appellate order dated 10.9.2015 remanding the matter to the 2^nd respondent so as to review the rough patta proceedings after hearing

¶29

WP(C).No. 34856 of 2018

¶30

-3-

¶31

all the parties. According to the petitioner, the said direction of the appellate authority in Ext.P-2 has not been complied with by the 1^st respondent-original authority and directions should be issued by this Court so as to effectuate the order of remand made by the first appellate authority in Ext.P-2 appellate order. It is on this premise that the instant Writ Petition (Civil) has been initiated with the aforementioned prayers.

¶32

4. Sri.S.Manu, learned Senior Central

¶33

Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents would point out that from a perusal of Ext.P-1 proceedings dated 18.12.2015, more particularly, preamble thereto shown in the first para of Ext.P-1, immediately after the cause title, that Ext.P-1 is the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in compliance with the remand made by the appellate authority as per Ext.P-2. The preamble given on para 1 of Ext.P-1 reads as follows:

¶34

“This case was initially considered for confirmation of above rough patta by my predecessor-in-office and issued order dated 21.5.2001 by confirming rough patta on the basis of

¶35

WP(C).No. 34856 of 2018

¶36

-4-

¶37

records produced by respective parties. Thereafter, Shri.Koyakidave Ashrechetta, 20^th petitioner in that order preferred an appeal before the Appellate Revenue Court (SO/ADM) as First Appeal No.1/2012 against the order of then ASO, Kadmat. The Appellate Revenue Court after perusing the records and arguments of both sides, remanded the case to this Revenue Court vide Order dated 10.09.2015 in First Appeal No.01/2012 with direction to review the order dated 21.6.2001 after giving sufficient opportunities to all concerned and appellant of that appeal also.”

¶38

On a reading of the said portion of Ext.P-1 would make it clear that decision has been rendered by the 2^nd respondent only in compliance with the directions issued by the appellate authority as

¶39

per Ext.P-2. Hence, Sri.S.Manu, learned Senior Central Government Counsel, is right in contending on behalf of the respondents that there is no question of this Court granting the prayer as sought for, as the prayers in the Writ Petition has been framed with wrong factual premise as if the original authority has not so far passed the consequential order after the remand made by the appellate authority, though the impugned Ext.P-1 is to the contrary. Moreover, it is also pointed out that Ext.P-1 order is rendered as early as on 18.12.2015 and the Writ Petition is filed only as late as on 24.10.2018.

¶40

WP(C).No. 34856 of 2018

¶41

-5-

¶42

5. Without getting into the merits of the

¶43

controversy in any manner, it is ordered that it is for the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law, if he has any juticiable grievance in regard to Ext.P-1.

¶44

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand dismissed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

ALEXANDER THOMAS,

¶47

JUDGE.

¶48

Bkn/-

¶49

WP(C).No. 34856 of 2018

¶50

-6-

¶51

APPENDIX

¶52

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶53

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN REVENUE CASE NO.9/05/2015 DATED 18.12.2015. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.09.2015.

¶54

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF LETTER DATED 14.09.2015 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAVARATTI TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

A.C.Koyakidavu v. Settlement Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.C.Koyakidavu v. Settlement Officer

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

Lalitha C Vs the National Highway Authority

Dr. Riyaz Ahammed Vs the Union of India

Dr.Razia Salam Vs the Union of India

Manoli Nafeesa, Vs the Deputy Chief Engineer

Ramakkalmedu Green Energy (P) Ltd., Vs State of Kerala

Akhil S Vs Central Board of Secondary Education(Regional Office)