Disposed

Joseph Kurian v. the District Collector

Kerala HC10 Jan 2019WP(C)/807/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P.(C).Nos.807 & 816 of 2019, the High Court of Kerala directed the Tahsildar (Land Assignment) to decide land assignment applications within four months. The Court ordered completion of pending statutory formalities, including obtaining Committee recommendations and consulting local authorities, and directing the Tahsildar to finalize the requests after hearing the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to take a decision on land assignment applications within 4 months after completing all formalities and hearing the petitioners.

Joseph Kurian Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 20TH POUSHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 807 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 JOSEPH KURIAN, AGED 62 YEARS S/O. KURIAN, PATHIYIL HOUSE, ENTHAYAR P.O., IDUKKI 686 514

¶8

2 THOMAS KURIAN, AGED 51 YEARS S/O. KURIAN, PATHIYIL HOUSE, THIRUVALLAMALA THRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.MANILAL SRI.S.NIDHEESH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR IDUKKI. 685 503

¶12

2 THE TAHASILDAR (LAND ASSIGNMENT), TALUK OFFICE, PEERMADE, IDUKKI

¶13

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE, ELAPPARA, IDUKKI 685 501

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY ALONG WITH WPC 816/2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶18

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

¶19

W.P.(C).Nos.807 & 816 of 2019

¶20

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

¶21

Dated this the 10^th day of January, 2019

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The prayers in W.P.(C).No. 807/2019 are as follows:

¶24

“(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to process the applications of the petitioners for assignment and to take a decision strictly in accordance with the Land Assignment Act and Rules within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble court.

¶25

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P-6 within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶26

(iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

¶27

The prayers in W.P.(C).No. 816/2019 are as follows:

¶28

“(i) Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to process Ext.P-1 application for assignment and to take a decision strictly in accordance with the Land Assignment Act and Rules within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble court.

¶29

(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 2^nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P-1 application within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

¶30

(iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

¶31

Heard Sri.C.S.Manilal, learned counsel appearing for the

¶32

petitioners in these two cases and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned

¶33

Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶34

The facts in the above two cases broadly similar. The

¶35

W.P.(C).807 & 816/19 - : 3 :-

¶36

petitioners are applicants, who have applications for assignment of land before the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar (Land Assignment), Peermade, Idukki district under Rule 11(8) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. Exts.P1 and P-2 in W.P.(C).No. 807/2019 and Ext.P-2 in W.P.(C).No. 816/2019 are respective reports furnished by the 3^rd respondent Village Officer in favour of the petitioners regarding their requests for land assignment, to the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar. Exts.P-3, P-4 and P-5 in these cases are the notices duly published by the Village Office inviting objections. According to the petitioners, the abovesaid reports of the 2^nd respondent Village Officer are in their favour and no objections have been given by any person pursuant to the notices issued as per Ext.P-3 to P-5. However, no effective action is forthcoming on the applications for land assignment. The petitioners have also preferred Ext.P-6 in August, 2018, as reminders so as to request the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar to take a final decision on their applications for land assignment.

¶37

The petitioners have not averred as to whether or not the competent Land Assignment Committee has already made their recommendations or not in respect of the applications of the petitioners and whether or not, the consultation with the competent local authority/Panchayat etc. has also been duly completed. If such

¶38

W.P.(C).807 & 816/19 - : 4 :-

¶39

formalities have not so far been completed, then the 2^nd respondent Tahsildar (Land Assignment) may ensure that the matters are placed before the Land Assignment Committee concerned and their recommendations are also obtained without much delay. So also, the consultation process with the local authority/Panchayat concerned may also be duly completed so as to elicit the views of the local body concerned on the request of the petitioners for assignment of land. Thereafter, the 2^nd respondent, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, will take a decision so as to finalise the request made by the petitioners for land assignment after completing all the procedural formalities in that regard, without much delay, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶40

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

¶41

sdk+

¶42

Sd/- ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶43

W.P.(C).807 & 816/19 - : 5 :-

¶44

W.P.(C).No. 807/19

¶45

APPENDIX

¶46

PETITIONER'	S/S EXH	IBITS:
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE 15.11	COPY OF THE RE .2017	PORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE 7.12.	COPY OF THE RE 2017	PORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE VILLA	COPY OF THE GE OFFICE 12.12	NOTICE PUBLISHED AT THE .2017
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE VILLA	COPY OF THE GE OFFICE 12.12	NOTICE PUBLISHED AT THE .2017
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE NEIGH	COPY OF THE BORING LAND OWN	NOTICE ISSUED TO THE ERS DATED 12.12.2017
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE DATED	COPY OF THE R 31.8.2018	EQUEST OF THE PETITIONERS

Joseph Kurian v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joseph Kurian v. the District Collector

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

C.a.Muhammed Kunju, Vs the State of Kerala

Thalekkara Kunhimoideen @ Bava Vs the District Collector

Oorakathodi Asiya Vs Land Tribunal (Land Reforms)

Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Valliammal Vs the District Collector

Khadeeja Kaithakath Vs the State of Kerala