Disposed

Chinnamma Mathew Kanayamplakkal v. the Land Tribunal

Kerala HC7 Feb 2020WP(C)/559/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Section 106B(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, the petitioners sought the copy of an enquiry report. The court held that the petitioner must pay the requisite fee before obtaining the report and disposed of the petition on that basis.

What did the court decide?

The petition is disposed of on the terms that the petitioners may collect the said report by payment of requisite fees without delay.

Chinnamma Mathew Kanayamplakkal Vs the Land Tribunal — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 18TH MAGHA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.559 OF 2020(T)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 CHINNAMMA MATHEW KANAYAMPLAKKAL AGED 85 YEARS W/O. MATHEW, KOLAYAD P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT 670 650.

¶8

2 THOMAS KANAYAMPLAKKAL , AGED 55 YEARS S/O. MATHEW, KOLAYAD P.O. KANNUR DISTRICT 670 650.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 THE LAND TRIBUNAL KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT, 670 650.

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR 670 001.

¶13

SR GP ADV. SRI.S GOPINATHAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.559 OF 2020(T)

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Dated this the 7th day of February 2020

¶19

The petitioners appear to have filed an application under Section 106B(1) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963. The petitioners approached this Court to finalize the proceedings so initiated. The petitioners submit that an enquiry report has been submitted before the

¶20

Land Tribunal by the authorized officer and the petitioners were not given the copy of the enquiry report.

¶21

The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits

¶22

that the proceedings have been concluded and the petitioners' application has been rejected.

¶23

In view of the above, the petitioners' limited request is for enquiry report submitted by the authorized officer. Therefore, after collecting requisite fee for the same, the enquiry report shall be given to the petitioners without any delay.

¶24

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

SAS/07/02/2020

¶29

WP(C).No.559 OF 2020(T)

¶30

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS ON 17/7/1994.

¶34

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 2412/1969 DATED 31/12/1996 REFERRED TO IN EXT. P1

¶35

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE ISSUED TO THE FIRST PETITIONER ON 16/12/2015. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER ON 16/12/2015. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES DATED 8/12/2015 OF THE VADAKKEKKALAM ESTATE LAND DISTRIBUTING MEETING. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN O.A. 760/2015 DATED 29.01.2020 EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29.01.2020 IN O.A.NO. 752/2015 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶36

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Chinnamma Mathew Kanayamplakkal v. the Land Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnamma Mathew Kanayamplakkal v. the Land Tribunal

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

Paster Varghese K Mathews Vs District Police Chief

V.K.Kumaran Vs the District Police Chief

U.Sreekanth Pai, Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Chandrasekharan, Vs State of Kerala

Sivadasan, Vs State of Kerala

Velayudhan C.N Vs State of Kerala