Dismissed

George Joseph, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Sept 2020WP(C)/13325/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition to quash an order by the Tahsildar rejecting a representation regarding land property dispute, seeking mandamus to the Revenue Divisional Officer. The Court found the recommendation appeal was already rejected by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who had rejected the petition. The petitioner stated he would challenge the order separately. The Court dismissed the writ

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the order of the 2nd respondent in appropriate proceedings.

George Joseph, Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 25TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.13325 OF 2020(M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GEORGE JOSEPH, AGED 53 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, THRIKKANASSERIL, PAIKKATT HOUSE, RANDAR KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686673.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.R.ROHITH

¶9

RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR GENERAL, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL

¶13

OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686661.

¶14

3 TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE MUVATTUPUZHA, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686661.

¶15

4 VILLAGE OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA VILLAGE, AVOLY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686673.

¶16

5 THE SECRETARY, AVOLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AVOLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686673.

¶17

6 BAIJU M. JOSEPH, AGE NOT KNOWN, MUNDIRINGAD VEEDU, RANDAR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -686673.

¶18

7 JAMES JOSEPH, AGE NOT KNOWN, PAIKKATT VEEDU, RANDAR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686673.

¶19

R6-7 BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ANISON

¶20

R6-7 BY ADV. SMT.V.BHARGAVI (PANANGAD) R6-7 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.RINUSA R1 TO 4 BY SMT K.AMMINIKUTTY- SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

¶23

WP(C).No.13325 OF 2020(M)

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

The petitioner and the 7^th respondent are cousins. They are having certain disputes regarding 10 cents of property in Muvattupuzha Village. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P1 order dated 06.09.2019 of the 3^rd respondent Tahsildar, Muvattupuzha and seeking a writ of mandamus commmanding the 2^nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Muvattupuzha to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 representation dated 25.09.2019, which is in fact an appeal filed under clause (I) of Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules, 1966.

¶26

On 03.07.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court admitted the matter on file and the learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1 to 5. The petitioner was directed to take out notice to respondents 5 to 7.

¶27

On 14.09.2020, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7 pointed out that Ext.P2 application made by the petitioner has already been rejected by the 2^nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, by order No.A5-5844/19/K.Dis. dated 12.06.2020. The learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that the said order is revisable

¶28

WP(C).No.13325 OF 2020(M)

¶29

¶30

before the District Collector, in view of the provisions under clause (iv) of Rule 18 of the Transfer of Registry Rules.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7.

¶32

The learned Senior Government Pleader has made available for the perusal of this Court, a copy of order No.A55844/19/K.Dis. dated 12.06.2020 issued by the 2^nd respondent, whereby Ext.P2 appeal filed by the petitioner stands rejected.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner proposes to challenge the said order passed by the 2^nd respondent in appropriate proceedings.

¶34

Recording the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is petition is dismissed, since the 2^nd respondent has already rejected Ext.P2 appeal by the order dated 12.06.2020; however without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the said order in appropriate proceedings.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶37

MIN

¶38

WP(C).No.13325 OF 2020(M)

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/09/2019 IN D3-6703/2019 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶43

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/09/2019 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

George Joseph, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

George Joseph, 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

Kerala Academy of Pharmacy Vs the Registrar, Kerala University of Health Sciences

Madhusoodana Panicker Vs the State of Kerala

Alibava Vs Union of India

Prasanna Kumar, Vs the State Police Chief

C M Paul Vs the State of Kerala

Bhanumathy Chandravally Vs State of Kerala