Disposed

Sivadasan, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Feb 2020WP(C)/566/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged delay in considering his request for rectification of resurvey anomaly filed with the Additional Tahsildar. Court directed respondents to initiate action and complete rectification within three months after notice.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents 2 and 4 to consider request for rectification within three months after notice to petitioner and affected persons.

Sivadasan, Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | 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.566 OF 2020(U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SIVADASAN, AGED 54 YEARS S/O LAKSHMIKUTTY AMMA,MUNNAKKIL HOUSE,THADUKKASSERY DESOM, THADUKKASSERY.P.O,KERALASSERY VILLAGE,PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678641.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶11

2 THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶12

3 THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD TALUK,PALAKKAD-678001.

¶13

4 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,CIVIL STATION.P.O, PALAKKAD-678001.

¶14

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KERALASSERY VILLAGE,PALAKKAD TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT678641.

¶15

6 SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEYS, CIVIL STATION,PALAKKAD-678001.

¶16

ADV. SRI.G P DHANIL M R

¶17

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

¶18

WP(C).No.566 OF 2020(U)

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 7th day of February 2020

¶22

The petitioner approached this Court on account of delay

¶23

involved in considering his request for rectification of resurvey anomaly. The petitioner approached the Additional Tahsildar-4^th respondent by Ext.P2. The complaint was as early as on 12.05.2014. The petitioner refers to various other communications. There is a considerable delay in considering the request of the petitioner.

¶24

Necessary action shall be initiated by the respondents 2 and 4 to consider the request of the petitioner for rectification. It shall be done within a period of three months after notice to the petitioner and all affected persons.

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

SAS/07/02/2020

¶30

WP(C).No.566 OF 2020(U)

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.3424/2006 OF SRO PALAKKAD DATED 8.8.2006
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.5.2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE TAHSILDAR
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR DATED 31.10.2015 TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 23/6/2017
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16.09.2019
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER REPRESENTATION DATED 11.10.2019.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:-	NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

Sivadasan, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivadasan, 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

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

Chinnamma Mathew Kanayamplakkal Vs the Land Tribunal

Velayudhan C.N Vs State of Kerala