Allowed

Pankajakshi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Jan 2019WP(C)/1078/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a writ petition challenging a suo motu dismissal order by the Land Tribunal. The High Court set aside the order for lack of notice and reasoning. Proceedings were remitted to the Tribunal with directions to conduct an enquiry, give notice to the petitioner, and dispose of the matter within eight months.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P5 dismissal order set aside; suo motu proceedings restored to Land Tribunal for reconsideration afresh with notice and hearing opportunity.

Pankajakshi Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 24TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 1078 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

PANKAJAKSHI

¶8

AGED 65 YEARS W/O. LATE SIVADASAN, VALATHODU, EDAPUZHA P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT 670 604

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.T.V.NEEMA

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶13

2 THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KANNUR 670 001

¶14

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AARALAM VILLAGE, KANNUR DISTRICT 670 704

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SMT.A.C.VIDHYA,GOVT.PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

W.P.(C)No.1078/2019

¶19

¶20

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶21

W.P.(C)No.1078 of 2019

¶22

Dated this the 14^th day of January, 2019

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

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

¶25

“i. To issue a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate order calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 and quash the same; ii. To issue a Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the 2^nd Respondent to reconsider SM 22/2011 and pass a speaking order after hearing the Petitioner and necessary parties within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.”

¶26

Heard Sri. K. Mohanakannan, the learned counsel appearing

¶27

for the petitioner and Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶28

This Court has already rendered Ext.P6 judgment dated 13.12.2018 in W.P.(C)No.40619/208. In a similar case as in Ext.P6, this Court has set aside the impugned dismissal order and the suo motu proceedings has been remitted to the respondent Land Tribunal for consideration afresh etc. In the instant case also the suo motu proceedings No.22/2011 initiated at the behest of the petitioner has been dismissed by the Land Tribunal, Kannur without notice to the petitioner and without stating any reasons and the said impugned order at Ext.P5 reads as follows:

¶29

W.P.(C)No.1078/2019

¶30

¶31

“IN THE COURT OF DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND TRIBUNAL,

¶32

KANNUR (Present: Muralidharan V.P.) SM NO.22/2011 Between : Shivadasan S/O. Kuttappan Kaduppil Edapppuzha (PO) Valathod (PO). : A party.

¶33

And

¶34

Mundayamparamb Bhagavathi Kshetram: B party

¶35

ORDER

¶36

This is suo motu proceedings initiated on the respect of the Village Officer Aralam Village U/s.72 of the KLR Act, 1964 as amended for assignment of the right, title and interest of the land owner in respect of 0.3566H Land in RS No.124 of Aralam desom in the name of A party.

¶37

No sufficient documents to prove tenancy. SM dismissed. “

¶38

The impugned dismissal order at Ext.P5 order herein is identically worded as the impugned order as per Ext.P3 in Ext.P6 judgment. Accordingly, following the line of directions and orders already issued by this Court in Ext.P6 judgment, it is ordered in the interest of justice that Ext.P5 dismissal order dated 5.2.2016 will stand set aside and the suo motu proceedings, S.M.No.22/2011 will stand restored to the 2^nd respondent Land Tribunal for consideration afresh. It is further ordered that if sufficient materials are not collected in the enquiry process, the Land Tribunal will ensure that necessary enquiry proceedings are conducted with prior notice to the petitioner and any other affected parties. The petitioner should also be given an opportunity to produce necessary materials in support of her case. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent Land Tribunal will grant opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and any

¶39

W.P.(C)No.1078/2019

¶40

¶41

other affected parties concerned and finally dispose of the matter in suo motu proceedings, S.M.No.22/ 2011 without much delay preferably within a period of eight months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶42

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

¶43

sd/-

¶44

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.

acd

W.P.(C)No.1078/2019

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶50

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS HUSBAND DATED 11.1.1985 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS HUSBAND DATED 16.5.2011. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ADHAR CARD ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AARALAM IN THE YEAR 2011. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5.2.2016 IN SM 22/2011 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 40619/2018 DATED 13.12.2018

¶51

TRUE COPY

¶52

P.S. TO JUDGE.

Pankajakshi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankajakshi v. State of Kerala

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

Joseph George Vs State of Kerala

Mouvanal Kalyani Vs State of Kerala

Sasi Kumar, Vs State of Kerala

Rangorath Gokul Prasad, Vs State of Kerala

Manjusha S Vs the State of Kerala

V.X. Alexander, Vs the District Collector