Disposed

Nagarajan v. the Tahsildar (Survey)

Kerala HC14 Mar 2022WP(C)/1621/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Government to constitute a Land Assignment Committee within four months to consider the petitioner's land assignment application. The Collector must issue a final order within one month of recommendations, and eviction proceedings pending against the petitioner are deferred.

What did the court decide?

Direction to constitute a Land Assignment Committee; order to consider application and issue final order; eviction action deferred.

Nagarajan Vs the Tahsildar (Survey) — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1621 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

NAGARAJAN AGED 61 YEARSS/O RAJARATNAM, RESIDING AT T C 18/186, THOPPUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PATTALAM ROAD,NEAR EAST POLICE STATION, THRISSUR-680001. BY ADVS. G.HARIHARAN PRAVEEN.H.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE TAHSILDAR (SURVEY) OPPOSITE TOWN HALL, WEST PALACE ROAD, CHEMBUKKAV P O, THRISSUR-680020. 2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER NEAR CITY POST OFFICE, CHEMBUKKAV, THRISSUR-680020. 3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680003. 4 THE TAHSILDAR, OPPOSITE TOWN HALL, WEST PALACE ROAD, CHEMBUKKAV P O, THRISSUR-680001, 5 THRISSUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, THEKKINKADU MAIDAN, THRISSUR 380001 (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY). BY ADV SHRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION

¶10

WP(C) NO. 1621 OF 2022

¶11

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SRI.SANTHGOSH PODUVAL.S.C ANDSMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY SR.G.P.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

WP(C) NO. 1621 OF 2022

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The only prayer made by the petitioner before this Court in this writ petition is that his application for assignment of land, comprised of 4 cents in Survey No. 2123/7 of Thrissur Village, be directed to be considered by the 3^rd respondent – District Collector without any further delay.

¶19

In response, Smt.K.Amminikutty – learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that the afore request of Smt.Anjali.T. A – learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be acceded to without first constituting a Land Assignment Committee (LAC). She submitted that, for this purpose, a minimum of six months time would be required. She added that it is only after the said committee takes a final decision, can the District Collector issue appropriate orders on Ext.P5 application.

¶20

¶21

WP(C) NO. 1621 OF 2022

¶22

The learned Standing Counsel for the Thrissur Corporation – Sri.Santhosh Poduval, submitted that, as is evident from Ext.P8, the petitioner has already been informed by his client that the land in question is reserved for the purpose of widening of a road and is included under the DTP Scheme for a “ Commercial and Light Industrial Use

¶23

Zone”. He submitted that, therefore, none of the reliefs sought for in this writ petition will be acceded to.

¶24

Even when I hear Sri.Santhosh Poduval on the afore lines, the fact remains that the petitioner has been waiting for an answer on his application for assignment for the last several years and only after it is properly decided, can he take further recourse in law, if it is so available to him thereafter.

¶25

I am, consequently, of the firm view that 3^rd respondent must take a final decision on Ext.P5, after hearing the petitioner, as also the Corporation, without any

¶26

¶27

WP(C) NO. 1621 OF 2022

¶28

further delay.

¶29

In the afore circumstances and particularly taking note of the above submissions of Smt.K. Amminikutty, I order this writ petition in the following manner:

¶30

(a) The Government will constitute an apposite Land Assignment Committee (LAC) for the Thrissur Corporation within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶31

(b) On the LAC being so constituted, the Committee will consider the petitioner's application, namely Ext.P5 and make their recommendations to the 3^rd respondent – District Collector, within a period of one month thereafter, after hearing him as also the competent Authority of the Corporation.

¶32

¶33

WP(C) NO. 1621 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

without any avoidable delay, but not later than one month from then.

¶36

(d) Until such time as the afore exercise is completed and

¶37

the resultant order communicated to the petitioner, all action to evict him from the area in question shall stand deferred.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶40

ANB

¶41

WP(C) NO. 1621 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1621/2022

¶44

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶45

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT
	NO.1819 DATED 21.12.1954 ISSUED BY THE PARVATHIKAR (VILLAGE OFFICER) IN THE NAME OF MR.CHINNASWAMY KONAR RELATING TO THE PROPERTIES HELD BY THEM.
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THRISSUR
	ON 02.03.2020 IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE NO.17450/15 DATED 28.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR THRISSUR IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 31.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 23.11.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR ASSIGNMENT OF LAND COMPRISED IN SURVEY NO.2123/7 OF THRISSUR VILLAGE.
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.09.2021 IN WPC NO.28030/2020 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 08.10.2021 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
	01.01.2022 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER.

Nagarajan v. the Tahsildar (Survey)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagarajan v. the Tahsildar (Survey)

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

Prabhakaran Nair, Vs State of Kerala

Girish T.C., Vs Union of India

Mr. Koshy Zacharia Karuvelil Vs Mr. Vishnu Raj

M.C.Muralidharan Vs District Collector

Gopuran Associates Vs Asset Homes Pvt. Ltd.

Mary W/O Vavachan Vs District Collector, Idukki