Disposed

Krishna Moorthy M v. the District Collector

Kerala HC5 Jan 2021WP(C)/27770/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that appellate orders against the Additional Tahsildar must lie before the Revenue Divisional Officer, not the Collector. The Court directed the Collector to transmit the petitions to the RDO within two weeks, with the RDO to decide within two months.

What did the court decide?

Transmit appeals to Revenue Divisional Officer within two weeks; Revenue Divisional Officer to pass orders within two months.

Krishna Moorthy M Vs the District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

W.P.(C) No.27770 OF 2020(U)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 KRISHNA MOORTHY M S/O. LATE MARIMUTHU NAIKAR, SOORYACHIRA, PUDUSSERY POST, PALAKKAD - 678623.

¶8

2 SARASWATHY

¶9

W/O. LATE RAMACHANDRAN, SOORYACHIRA, PUDUSSERY POST, PALAKKAD - 678623.

¶10

3 VENUGOPALAN

¶11

S/O. LATE MARIMUTHU NAIKAR, SOORYACHIRA, PUDUSSERY POST, PALAKKAD - 678623.

¶12

BY ADVS.

¶13

SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K. SRI.LIJU. M.P

¶14

SRI.JOPHY POTHEN KANDANKARY

¶15

RESPONDENT/S:

¶16

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶17

CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678001.

¶18

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD - 678001.

¶19

3 THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, PALAKKAD - 678001.

¶20

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PUDUSSERY WEST VILLAGE, PUDUSSERY POST, PALAKKAD - 678623.

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

SMT A.C.VIDHYA- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

W.P.(C) No.27770 OF 2020(U)

¶25

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

The petitioners are stated to be owners in possession of properties comprised in Survey No.371E13 (9.8 cents), Survey No.371E11 (20 cents) and Survey No.371E14 (16 cents) of Pudussery West Village, respectively, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding 2^nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P11, P12 and P13 appeals filed against Exts.P8, P9 and P10 orders of the 3^rd respondent Additional Tahsildar, Palakkad, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶28

On 15.12.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice before admission for respondents 1 and 4 and sought time to get instructions.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶30

4 . Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957, which read thus;

¶31

“16. Appeal and revision.--(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order under this act of any officer

¶32

W.P.(C) No.27770 OF 2020(U)

¶33

¶34

authorised under section 15 may appeal –

¶35

a) where such officer is the Revenue Divisional Officer, to the collector :

¶36

Provided that no such appeal shall lie in any case where the order is passed by the Revenue divisional Officer on appeal under clause (b); and

¶37

b) in all other cases , to the Revenue Divisional Officer, and the Collector or the Revenue Divisional Officer, as the case may be, may pass such order on the appeal as he thinks fit,

¶38

The Collector may either suo motu or on application revise any decision made or order passed under this Act by any officer authorised under section 15:. Provided that where such officer is the Revenue Divisional Officer,the Collector shall not on application revice any decision made or order passed otherwise than an appeal; provided further that the Collector shall not revise any decision or order if an appeal against such decision or order is spending or if the time for preferring an appeal if any,against such decision or order has not expired .

¶39

Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Collector under this act (otherwise than on appeal or revision) may appeal to the Board of Revenue,and the Board of Revenue may pass such order on the appeal as the things fit .

¶40

The Board of Revenue may either “suo motu” or on application revice any order passed by the Collector on appeal.

¶41

Government may The Board of Revenue may either “suo motu” or on application revice any order passed by the Board of Revenue on appeal.

¶42

W.P.(C) No.27770 OF 2020(U)

¶43

¶44

No order shall be passed under sub section (1)or sub section (2) or sub section (3) or sub section (4) or sub section (5) without giving the party who may be affected there by an opportunity of being heard.

¶45

Pending disposal of any appeal or revision under this Act, the appellate authority or the revising authority, as the case may be, may suspend the execution of the decision or order appealed against or sought to be revised.”

¶46

Exts.P8, P9 and P10 orders issued by 3rd respondent Additional Tahsildar are appealable before the 2^nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, under Section 16 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. Exts.P11 to P13 appeals are wrongly filed before the 1 st respondent District Collector, which have already been numbered as Appeal Nos.8849 of 2013, 8830 of 2013, and 8850 of 2013.

¶47

6 . Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;

¶48

(i) The 1 st respondent District Collector shall transmit Exts.P11 to P13 appeals filed by the petitioners against Exts.P8 to P10 orders of the 3 rd respondent Additional Tahsildar to the 2 nd respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, who is the appellate authority, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. (ii) Thereafter, the 2 nd respondent shall consider those

¶49

W.P.(C) No.27770 OF 2020(U)

¶50

¶51

appeals and pass appropriate orders thereon, with a notice to the petitioners and after affording them an opportunity of being heard, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a further period of two months.

¶52

No order as to costs.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶55

MIN

¶56

W.P.(C) No.27770 OF 2020(U)

¶57

¶58

APPENDIX

¶59

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶60

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PALAKKAD.	DEED NO.369/90 OF SRO,
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE SRO, PALAKKAD.	WILL NO. 190/1993 OF
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 21.04.1995 PETITIONER NO.1.	PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 21.04.1995 RAMACHANDRAN.	PURCHASE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE LATE
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 01.10.2013 PETITIONER.	POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE FIRST
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 03.10.2013 PETITIONER.	POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 2ND
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 04.10.2013 PETITIONER.	POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE 3RD
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ADDRESSING THE F	ORDER DATED 20.11.2013 IRST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE ADDRESSING THE 2	ORDER DATED 20.11.2013 ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ADDRESSING THE 3	ORDER DATED 20.11.2013 RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE	APPEAL NO. 8849/2013 FIRST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE	APPEAL NO.8830/2013 FIRST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE	APPEAL NO.8850/2013 FIRST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE 20.12.2013 MADE TO THE 2ND RESPO	COMMUNICATION DATED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT NDENT.

¶61

W.P.(C) No.27770 OF 2020(U)

¶62

¶63

EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 05.11.2020 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 0810-2020 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-032015 PASSED IN OS NO.652/2013 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF'S COURT, PALAKKAD. EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12-082000 PASSED IN AS NO.116/2015 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT COURT, PALAKKAD.

Krishna Moorthy M v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishna Moorthy M 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shaji P.K. Vs the District Police Chief

Manoj Kumar K Pillai Vs State Bank of India

Mayil Swamy. N Vs State of Kerala

The Principal, Century International Institute of Dental Science and Research Centre Vs Kerala University of Health Sciences

Kirankumar Vs State of Kerala

Upedra Prasad @ Upendran Vs the Superintendent of Police (Rural)