Allowed

Yousaf, v. the Special Tahsildar

Kerala HC5 Jan 2022WP(C)/115/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the Special Tahsildar argued the petition was premature as suo motu proceedings were recently initiated. The Court fixed an extended limit of twenty-four months for the competent authority to complete proceedings after affording appropriate hearing opportunities.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to complete proceedings in S.M.No.2111 of 2021 within twenty-four months from receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

Yousaf, Vs the Special Tahsildar — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 15TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 115 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

YOUSAF, AGED 53 YEARS S/O. ATTU, PAARAKUNDIL HOUSE, KALPAKANCHERY, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV P.T.SHEEJISH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR), LAND TRIBUNAL TIRUR, CIVIL STATION, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA 676 101.

¶11

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALPAKANCHERY VILLAGE MALAPPURAM DSITIRCT, KERALA 676 310.

¶12

SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY .SR.G.P.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 115 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶18

asserting that a suo motu proceedings, bearing

¶19

S.M.No.2111 of 2021, has been initiated against him by the 1st respondent - Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms); and seeks that the

¶20

same be directed to be disposed of within a

¶21

time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶22

Government Pleader, Smt.K.Amminikutty,

¶23

submitted that the afore mentioned suo motu

¶24

proceedings was initiated against the petitioner only in recently and therefore,

¶25

that this writ petition is premature.

¶26

Government Pleader, as afore, it is without

¶27

doubt this Court has been ordering suo motu

¶28

proceedings to be disposed of within a time

¶29

frame. That said, though this Court normally

¶30

fixes eighteen months time for the Competent

¶31

WP(C) NO. 115 OF 2022

¶32

¶33

Authority to complete proceedings, I am of the view that in this case it will be justified to

¶34

expand it to twenty four months, since the application of the petitioner has been made only very recently.

¶35

Resultantly, this writ petition is

¶36

ordered, directing the 1st respondent to

¶37

complete proceedings in S.M.No.2111 of 2021,

¶38

after following due procedure and after affording necessary opportunity of being heard

¶39

to the petitioner – as also any other

¶40

interested person - as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than twenty four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

SAS/05/01/2022

¶45

WP(C) NO. 115 OF 2022

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 115/2022

¶48

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶49

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.12.2021. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF SUOMOTO PROCEEDINGS IN SM NO. 2111/2201 DATED 24.12.2021.

Yousaf, v. the Special Tahsildar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yousaf, v. the Special Tahsildar

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

Thomas K.T., Vs the Village Officer

Subaida, Vs Land Tribunal (Devaswom)

K.P.Kunjikannan, Vs Land Tribunal, Ottappalam

U.B.Ummrabba, Vs the Project Director

Ayishakutty Vs Land Tribunal (Land Reforms)

Sobha Roy Vs Inspector General of Registration