Disposed

Syam Kumar v. the District Collector

Kerala HC2 Mar 2022WP(C)/2015/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application for transfer of a land registry, the Court directed the Tahsildar to fix a hearing date for the petitioners and the temple claiming possession to produce documents, and to conclude proceedings within one month to determine ownership and compensation under land acquisition proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent (Tahsildar) to fix a hearing date for petitioners and the Temple representative, to produce documents, and to conclude proceedings on Ext.P10 within one month.

Syam Kumar Vs the District Collector — 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 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2015 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SYAM KUMAR

¶8

AGED 35 YEARS

¶9

S/O.ASOKA KUMAR P.B.(LATE), PUSHPAVADY, PATTANAKKAD
P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 531.

¶10

2 PREMKUMAR

¶11

AGED 32 YEARS

¶12

S/O.ASOKA KUMAR P.B.(LATE), PUSHPAVADY, PATTANAKKAD
P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 531.

¶13

BY ADVS.

¶14

B.PRAMOD
NAMITHA JYOTHISH

¶15

RESPONDENTS:

¶16

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.

¶17

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DISTRICT COURT WAY ROAD, KIDANGAPARAMBU, THONDANKULANGARA, THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA - 688 013.

¶18

3THE TAHSILDAR
TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA TALUK, POLICE STATION ROAD,
NEAR MINI CIVIL STATION, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA
DISTRICT - 688 524.

¶19

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PATTANAKKAD VILLAGE OFFICE, PATTANAKKAD P.O., CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 531.

¶20

¶21

W.P.(C) No. 2015 of 2022

¶22

5NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
G 5 & 6 SECTOR - 10, DWARAKA, NEW DELHI - 110
075, REPRESENTED BY THE PROJECT DIRECTOR,
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, NHAI,
NO.36/414(3), NEAR NSS HIGHER SECONDARY
SCHOOL, PALKKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -
695 008.
6THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR & COMPETENT
AUTHORITY
LAND ACQUISITION (NATIONAL HIGHWAYS), NH66,
CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA - 695 001.
7THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ACQUISITION)
(NATIONAL HIGHWAYS), NH66, CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA - 688 539.
BY ADVS.
M/S.M.V.KINI AND CO., SC, NHAI
E.C.KURIAKOSE
LEJO JOSEPH GEORGE

¶23

SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY SR.G.P.

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 02.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

W.P.(C) No. 2015 of 2022

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Dated this the 2 nd day of March, 2022 .

¶29

The petitioners assert that the property involved in this case was owned by their late grand father, whose only legal heir was their father – Sri.P.B.Asoka Kumar, who has since deceased. They say that even while their father was alive, he had made Ext.P10 application for transfer of Registry of the property in his name, but that before proceedings thereon would be completed, he unfortunately died on 18.12.2021.

¶30

The petitioners assert that, therefore, the 3^rd respondent – Tahsildar is now obligated to consider Ext.P10, after affording them an opportunity of being heard and to produce requisite documents. They thus

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 2015 of 2022

¶33

pray that Tahsildar be directed to do so, treating Ext.P10 to be an application made by them, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶34

In response to the afore submissions of Sri.B.Pramod – learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.K.Amminikutty – learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that after Ext.P10 application was made by the petitioners’ father, he and the entity now alleged to be in possession of the property in question, were called for hearing but that they refused to appear or even to produce any documents in substantiation. She explained that the hearing was conducted on 28.09.2021, but that Sri.P.B.Asoka Kumar, petitioners’ father, died on 18.12.2021; and therefore, that the Tahsildar has now been incapacitated from issuing any affirmative orders on Ext.P10. She concluded her submissions saying that, as per the tentative information

¶35

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 2015 of 2022

¶37

now available, the property in question is in the possession of a Temple by name Sree Sakthi Vinayaka Temple and therefore, that if this Court is inclined to direct Ext.P10 to be disposed of, said entity or their authorized person will have to be heard.

¶38

When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that, admittedly, Ext.P10 has not been finally disposed of until now. Even though hearing is stated to have been scheduled on 28.09.2021, the petitioners’ father unfortunately died a couple of months thereafter and final orders could not be issued. Of course, the specific stand of the learned Senior Government Pleader is that the petitioners’ father or the entity who claims to be now in possession of the property did not produce any documents in substantiation of their rival plea and that, therefore, the Tahsildar was unable to finalize the proceedings.

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 2015 of 2022

¶41

Taking note of the afore submissions, I am certain that petitioners must be given an opportunity of substantiating their plea, particularly because they say that the tax on the property in question was paid by their predecessor-in-interest, as manifest from Exts.P5 and P6.

¶42

In the afore circumstances, I direct the 3^rd respondent – Tahsildar, to fix a date for hearing of the petitioners as well as the authorized representative of the aforementioned Temple and to complete proceedings on Ext.P10; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

I make it clear that on the date to be fixed by the Tahsildar, the parties shall produce all documents in substantiation of their respective claim; and it will be based on the same, that said Authority will take a final

¶44

¶45

W.P.(C) No. 2015 of 2022

¶46

decision in terms of the afore directions.

¶47

Needless to say, since the land in question has now been acquired for the purposes of the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI), the competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) appointed under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act), will take a decision with respect to the compensation payable adverting to the order of the Tahsildar, in terms of the afore directions, to be produced before it by either of the parties.

¶48

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶49

Raj/02.03.2022.

¶50

¶51

W.P.(C) No. 2015 of 2022

¶52

¶53

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS` `Exhibit P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF` `P.K.BALAKRISHNAN ISSUED FROM THE PATTANAKKAD` `PANCHAYAT DATED 08/07/2015.`
`Exhibit P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF ASOKA KUMAR` `P.B. ISSUED FROM THE PATTANAKKAD PANCHAYAT DATED` `11/1/2022.`
`Exhibit P3`	`TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF THE SSLC BOOK OF` `ASOKA KUMAR P.B.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE RATION CARD` `ISSUED TO THE PETITIONERS’ FAMILY.`
`Exhibit P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED` `5/12/1996.`
`Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED` `21/8/1967.`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE ILLEGIBLE COPY OF THE DEED REGISTERED AS` `DOCUMENT NO.1770/11 OF PATTANAKKAD SRO BY VIRTUE` `OF WHICH THE PETITIONERS' GRANDFATHER` `P.K.BALAKRISHNAN BECOME THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.`
`Exhibit P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE` `NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MALAYALA MANORAMA DATED` `18/04/2019.`
`Exhibit P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07/09/2021 ISSUED BY` `THE 7TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P10`	`TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 28/09/2021` `SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS' FATHER ASOKA KUMAR` `P.B. BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P11`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1/11/2021 ISSUED BY` `THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`

Syam Kumar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syam Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vechoorettu Resorts Pvt. Ltd. Vs Tahasildar (Land Records)

Sabiya Umma Vs the Thahisldar (Land Records)

Kunhachumma Vs the Tahsildar

M.Ahammed, Vs Abbas N.P.

Abdulla Kunhi Vs State of Kerala

Radha E. v. Vs Special Deputy Collector