Allowed

Muhammed Musthafa v. Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms)

Kerala HC18 Jan 2022WP(C)/1647/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the initiation of suo motu proceedings against him. The Court directed the special Tahsildar to complete the proceedings within eighteen months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to complete the suo motu proceedings (S.M.No.1103A of 2021) within eighteen months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, following due procedure an

Muhammed Musthafa Vs Special Tahsildar… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 28TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 1647 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MUHAMMED MUSTHAFA AGED 51 YEARS S/O. KAMMUNNI, KUMMALLIL HOUSE, KULATHOL, NADUVATTOM POST, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 571.

¶8

BY ADV BINU V V VEETTIL VALAPPIL

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND REFORMS) OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR), THE LAND TRIBUNAL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 101.

¶11

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER NADUVATTOM VILLAGE OFFICE, NADUVATTOM, KUTTIPPURAM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 571.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SMT.M.ANIMA.G.P.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 1647 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court asserting that a suo motu proceedings, bearing S.M.No.1103A of 2021, has been initiated against him by the 1^st respondent - Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms); and seeks that the same be directed to be disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶19

In response, the learned Government Pleader,

¶20

Smt. M. Anima, submitted that the afore mentioned suo motu proceedings was initiated against the petitioner only in 2021 and therefore, that this writ petition is premature.

¶21

Even though I find the afore submissions of the learned Government Pleader to be valid, I am also aware that, as a rule, this Court directs the competent authority to dispose of such proceedings within a period of eighteen months. I, therefore, do not see why the

¶22

WP(C) NO. 1647 OF 2022

¶23

¶24

petitioner should not be given the said benefit. Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered, directing

¶25

the 1^st respondent to complete proceedings in S.M.No.1103A of 2021, after following due procedure and after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the petitioner – as also any other interested person - as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than eighteen months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶26

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶27

ANB

¶28

WP(C) NO. 1647 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1647/2022

¶31

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶32

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 12.01.2022.

Muhammed Musthafa v. Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Musthafa v. Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms)

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

Leela A.P Vs State of Kerala

T.Venugopal Vs State of Kerala

Varghese Chacko, Vs the District Collector

K.V. Ramachandran Vs State of Kerala

Rajamani Vs the Tahsildar

Sharafudeen Vs the Special Tahsildar