Dismissed

Mammathu v. the Majeri Municipality

Kerala HC14 Feb 2019WP(C)/162/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a review petition filed by Krishnankutti Achari. The petitioner sought to clarify that earlier judgments regarding Government land did not prejudice his rights to apply for assignment of additional land in possession, which was not part of the original pleadings.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is dismissed. The judgment under review stands without reconsideration.

Mammathu Vs the Majeri Municipality — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1940

¶5

RP.No. 162 of 2019 IN WP(C). 4478/2017

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 4478/2017 of HIGHCOURT

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONERS:

¶8

KRISHNANKUTTI ACHARI, AGED 80 YEARS MARANGATTU MADOM, THULAPRAMBU, HARIPADU, PIN 690 514.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN

¶11

SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN 695 001.

¶15

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.

¶16

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, HARIPADU,

¶17

4 THE DISTRICT SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, ALAPPUZHA.

¶18

5 ASHOKAN ANILKUMAR, AGED 45 YEARS S/O DEVADASAN, PANACHOOR KIZHAKETHIL, THEKKEMURI, THULAPARAMABU, HARIPAD, PIN 690 514.

¶19

6 ASHOKAN, S/O KRISHNANKUTTI ACHARI, MARANGATTU MADOM, THULAPRAMBU, HARIPADU, PIN 690 514.

¶20

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

RP.No. 162 of 2019 2

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This review petition is filed seeking a

¶24

review of the judgment, clarifying that the findings in the judgment shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to

¶25

pursue his remedies to get Annexure A1

¶26

application processed in accordance with law by the authority.

¶27

Annexure A1 is an application preferred by the petitioner for assignment of 9.6 cents of

¶28

Government land.

¶29

petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent.

¶30

It is submitted by the learned counsel for

¶31

the petitioner that the petitioner had omitted to

¶32

inform his counsel that the petitioner was in

¶33

possession of 9.6 cents of land as ''Virivu'' as

¶34

RP.No. 162 of 2019 3

¶35

described in the title deed and that an

¶36

application has been preferred by the petitioner for assignment of the said land on lease. It is stated that apart from the 43.75 cents of land as shown in Ext.P1 title deed and Ext.P2 patta, the petitioner also had in possession of 9.6 cents of

¶37

land. It is therefore contended that the judgment may be reviewed and clarified that the observations in the judgment shall be without

¶38

prejudice to the rights of the petitioner in the application preferred by the petitioner for assignment of land.

¶39

The learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent would contend that the petitioner's specific case in the writ petition was that he

¶40

was not taking any usufructs from the Government

¶41

property adjacent to his land and he was not

¶42

making any encroachment into the said land. It is

¶43

further contended that he was in possession of

¶44

Government land and that the application

¶45

RP.No. 162 of 2019 4

¶46

preferred for assignment of the said land did not form part of the pleadings in the writ petition and that in view of the fact that the writ petition had been rendered on the basis of the pleadings placed on record, the review petition by itself is not maintainable.

¶47

advanced.

¶48

pleadings placed on record by the parties in the writ petition that the writ petition had been disposed of directing the survey and demarcation of the property owned by the petitioner to which

¶49

the petitioner had clear title. It was also

¶50

found that 5.29 ares in resurvey number 277 of 2017 of Haripad village is Government Puramboke land and that the petitioner cannot be permitted to take usufructs from the Government property. These observations had been made on the basis of

¶51

the pleadings placed on record. The petitioner

¶52

RP.No. 162 of 2019 5

¶53

now submits that the petitioner was in possession

¶54

of a portion of the Government Puramboke land also and that an application has been submitted for assignment of the said land. The application, if any, submitted by the petitioner for assignment is to be considered independently.

¶55

I am of the opinion that the judgment

¶56

under review does not require any reconsideration in view of the fact that it had been rendered on the basis of the documents placed on record in the writ petition.

¶57

The Review petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

SD/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

ACM / 7.3.2019

RP.No. 162 of 2019 6

¶63

APPENDIX

¶64

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶65

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.2.2012 DELAY PETITION

Mammathu v. the Majeri Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mammathu v. the Majeri Municipality

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

Aseena, Vs Kanjoor Grama Panchayat

Marar Samajam Uppilakai Reg No.Ksr Ca 34/2014 Vs the District Collector

Balakrishnan Melekkalam, Vs Sreekrishnapuram Grama Panchayat

Manseera.P.P., Vs the State of Kerala

K.N. Nalini, Vs the Secretary

Kamarudheen a.v., Vs Kunnamkulam Municipality