Allowed

Sadique Ali v. Special Tahsildar (Lr)

Kerala HC20 Jan 2022WP(C)/2029/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court fixed a time frame of twenty-four months for the Special Tahsildar to complete suo motu proceedings initiated against the petitioner, directed that due procedure be followed and opportunity of hearing afforded. The court rejected the government pleader's objection that the petition was premature.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st respondent to complete proceedings S.M.No.1798 of 2021 within twenty-four months, following due procedure and hearing.

Sadique Ali Vs Special Tahsildar (Lr) — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 30TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2029 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SADIQUE ALI

¶8

S/O. BEERAN, KATTATTU PURATH, KARINGAPPARA, OZHUR,
TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV P.T.SHEEJISH

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR) LAND TRIBUNAL TIRUR, CIVIL STATION, TIRUR P.O, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA - 676101.

¶12

2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER

¶13

OZHUR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN -
679571.

¶14

SMT.M.ANIMA.G.P.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

W.P.(C)No. 2029 of 2022

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 2 0 th day o f January, 2022 .

¶20

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶21

asserting that a suo motu proceedings, bearing S.M.No.1798 of 2021, has been initiated against him

¶22

by the 1^st respondent – Special Tahsildar (LR); and seeks that the same be directed to be disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶23

In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.M.Anima, submitted that the afore mentioned suo motu proceedings was initiated against the petitioner only recently and therefore, that this writ petition is premature.

¶24

When I hear the learned Senior Government Pleader, as afore, it is without doubt this Court has been ordering suo motu proceedings to be disposed of within

¶25

¶26

W.P.(C)No. 2029 of 2022

¶27

a time frame. That said, though this Court normally fixes eighteen months time for the Competent Authority to complete proceedings, I am of the view that in this case it will be justified to expand it to twenty four months, since the application of the petitioner has been made only very recently.

¶28

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered, directing the 1^st respondent to complete proceedings in S.M.No.1798 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 twenty four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶31

Raj/20.01.2022.

¶32

¶33

W.P.(C)No. 2029 of 2022

¶34

¶35

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶36

Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
28.10.2021.

¶37

Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF
SUOMOTO PROCEEDINGS IN SM NO.
1798/2021.

Sadique Ali v. Special Tahsildar (Lr)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadique Ali v. Special Tahsildar (Lr)

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

Village Officer Vs Gem Farm

Manoj Mavunkal Vs Tahsildar (Land Records)

Muhammed Asharaf Vs the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Rahul Mottammal, Vs State of Kerala

Manivasagar.S Vs Tahsildar (Lr)

Antony Luiz Vs the District Collector