Disposed

Babu T a v. Chalakudy Municipality

Kerala HC18 Nov 2022WP(C)/18027/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction for granting 'pattayam' after residing for 42 years. The court noted a delay in the notification process despite beneficiary identification and other approvals, directing officers to immediately notify land re-vesting and issue pattayam within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions to immediately notify the re-vesting of the land and issue pattayam to the petitioner and beneficiaries within six weeks.

Babu T a Vs Chalakudy Municipality — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 27TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 18027 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

BABU T A AGED 55 YEARS S/O ANANDHAN, TARAYIL HOUSE, KOODAPUZHA, CHALAKUDY P.O, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PINCODE : 680 307. BY ADV E.D.GEORGE

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1	CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY REPRESENT BY ITS SECRETARY, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DIST. PINCODE: 680 307.
2	THE SECRETARY, CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DIST. PINCODE: 680 307
3	THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KIZHAKKE CHALAKUDY, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DIST. PINCODE: 680 307.
4	THE TAHSILDAR, CHALAKUDY THALUK, CHALAKUDY, THRISSUR DIST. PINCODE : 680 307.
5	THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, PINCODE : 680 003.
6	THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PINCODE: 695 003.
7	STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENT BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PINCODE: 695 001.
	BY ADV SHEEJO CHACKO
	SMT. C. S. SHEEJA, SR.GP.
THIS WRIT	PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.11.2022,
THE COURT	ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

WP(C) NO. 18027 OF 2022

¶11

¶12

T.R.RAVI, J.

¶13

WP (C) No.18027 of 2022

¶14

Dated this the 18^th day of November, 2022

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Admit. Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 3 to 7. Standing Counsel takes notice for respondents 1 and 2.

¶17

The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to take necessary action to grant 'pattayam' to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the grant of 'pattayam' is getting delayed for the past several years and that the petitioner is residing in the property for the past 42 years and has no other place to reside. It is further submitted that the building where he is staying is in a dilapidated condition and he is not even able to make any repair since there is delay in the grant of 'pattayam'.

¶18

The 1^st respondent has filed a statement wherein it has been stated that the petitioner's application and applications of similarly situated persons had been considered and a joint inspection had been conducted by the Municipal officials and the Village Officer. A report was prepared showing

¶19

WP(C) NO. 18027 OF 2022

¶20

¶21

the details of 'puramboke' land and the buildings which were occupied by seven persons including the petitioner. Steps were taken for re-vesting of the 'puramboke' land in the revenue department and a draft notification has been forwarded to the Local Self Government Department. The resolution in the above lines dated 30.09.2019, has been produced as Ext.R1(a). It is stated that Ext.P11 draft notification had also been forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Local Self Government Department, Thiruvananthapuram in 2019 itself. It is further submitted that the Government had called for certain additional documents which have also been forwarded by the 1^st respondent.

¶22

A statement has been filed on behalf of the 7^th respondent wherein it is admitted that the petitioner is one of the beneficiaries to the proposal for grant of 'pattayam' in the 'puramboke'. It is stated that on 05.11.2022, a letter had been sent by the 1^st respondent to the 7^th respondent, wherein it is stated that the letter does not speak about issuance of 'pattayam' to the petitioner. In the statement, it is stated in paragraph No.6 that the course of action to be pursued in the application submitted by the beneficiaries are;

¶23

WP(C) NO. 18027 OF 2022

¶24

¶25

“1. This statement is filed on behalf of the 7^th respondent without prejudice to the right to file a detailed counter affidavit at a later state if found necessary. All the allegations and averments in the Writ Petition except that are specifically admitted hereunder are denied by this respondent.

¶26

It is submitted that regarding the action taken on the proposal for granting pattayam to the petitioner, Shri. T. A. Babu, S/o. Anandan, Tharayil (H), Koodapuzha, Chalakkudy, Thrissur is one of the residents in the 0.166 Hectare puramboke land (Manakkulam) within Chalakkudy Municipality in Kizhakke Chalakkudy Village, located in the Sy. No.138.

¶27

The Director (Urban), Local Self Government Department, furnished the proposal of granting pattayam to 19 natives of the above puramboke on 11.07.2022. The petitioner is the one among the beneficiaries in the proposal. The proposal, that contains the applications for granting pattayam for the puramboke, mentioned above, to the beneficiaries, requires thorough examination, and it has been taken up, and the file is under process.

¶28

On its first examination, the proposal made available by the Director (Urban), Local Self Government Department, Thiruvananthapuram, in detail, certain ambiguities have been noticed and the Director (Urban) has been called for their clarification.

¶29

The proposal is said to be intended for 19 beneficiaries within the 0.166 Hectare puramboke land (Manakkulam), within Chalakkudy Municipality in Kizhakke Chalakkudy Village, located in the Sy. No.138. But the proposal contains the details of only 7 beneficiaries. Besides this, the land records and

¶30

WP(C) NO. 18027 OF 2022

¶31

¶32

enclosures of a beneficiary have not been forwarded and mismatch of the name of a beneficiary has also been noticed. This has been addressed to the 6^th respondent. The 6th respondent has in turn called for the report from the 1st and 2nd respondents and given reply to the 7th respondent. True copy of the letter dated 05.11.2022 of the 6th respondent is produced herewith and marked as Annexure R7(a).”

¶33

On considering the documents which have been placed

¶34

on record and the contentions by the parties, it is apparent

¶35

that there has been considerable delay in the entire proceedings. The beneficiaries had been identified as early as in 2019 and proposals had also been sent by the 1^st respondent to the Government. The eligibility of the beneficiaries is not questioned. The proceedings for re-vesting of the properties in the Government has already been completed from the side of the 1^st respondent. All that remains is issuance of a notification in that regard, the draft of which had already been forwarded. Except for restating the procedures in paragraph No.6 of the statement, nothing concrete appears to have been done in that behalf. It is unfortunate that the beneficiaries should be driven to the Court for relief.

¶36

WP(C) NO. 18027 OF 2022

¶37

¶38

In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the concerned officers of the Government to immediately notify the re-vesting of the land in the Government and issue 'pattayam to the beneficiaries including the petitioner. Necessary orders shall be issued within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

T.R.RAVI

JUDGE

WP(C) NO. 18027 OF 2022

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18027/2022

¶46

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶47

Exhibit P1	CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE CHALAKUDY VILLAGE OFFICE ON 2018.
Exhibit P2	SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY PREPARED BY VILLAGE OFFICE ON 2019.
Exhibit P3	RATION CARD ON 15.03.2017.
Exhibit P4	PHOTOGRAPHS OF HUT RESIDING BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5	FILED MAP PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.
Exhibit P6	SANCTION LETTER OF ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR ON 25.02.2020.
Exhibit P7	PLAN OF THE PROPERTY ON 25.02.2020.
Exhibit P8	TAHSILDAR ISSUED A LETTER TO GRANTING THE PATTAYAM ON 01.07.2019.
Exhibit P9	INSPECTION REPORT PREPARED BY CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY ON 05.11.2020.
Exhibit P10	RECOMMENDATION LETTER OF CHALAKUDY MUNICIPALITY ON 10.11.2021.
Exhibit P11	A LETTER ISSUED BY MUNICIPALITY TO DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS ON 04.10.2019.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION BEARING NUMBER 10 DATED 30/09/2019.
Annexure R7(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 05.11.2022 OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶48

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Babu T a v. Chalakudy Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babu T a v. Chalakudy Municipality

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

E K Joseph, Vs the Special Tahsildar (La)

Sukesh Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Ebrahim Kutty Kunnumpurath Vs the District Registrar General, Kannur

Bank of Baroda, Vs the Village Officer

Nandakumar Vs the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Mariam Alias Baby Vs Arun