Disposed

Ambika, v. Radhamony

Kerala HC23 Mar 2022WP(C)/2492/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Village Officer and Tahsildar to consider the petitioners' representation for transfer of land registry after two weeks, granting respondents two months to challenge the impugned Ext.P6 order via statutory appeal. The Court reserved merits of finality of prior civil decrees.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent authorities to consider Ext.P8 representation after two weeks; granted respondents two months to file statutory appeal against Ext.P6.

Ambika, Vs Radhamony — 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 23^RD DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2492 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 AMBIKA, D/O. ANANDAN, CHOONDASSERIL, POLLETHAI P.O., ALAPPUZHA-688567.

¶8

2 PRAJEESHA K.P., D/O. LATE PUSHKARAN, KOOTTEZHATHUVELI, CHARMAMANGALAM, MAYITHARA, ALAPPUZHA-688539.

¶9

3 BIJEESHA. D/O. LATE PUSHKARAN, KOOTTEZHATHUVELI, CHARMAMANGALAM, MAYITHARA, ALAPPUZHA-688539.

¶10

4 VIJAYAN, S/O. ANANDAN, KIZHAKEVELIYIL, MAYITHARA, ALAPPUZHA688539.

¶11

5 PRASAD, S/O. ANANDAN, THUNDUCHIRAYIL, MAYITHARA MARKET P.O., KANJIKUZHI VILLAGE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688539.

¶12

6 SHALINI, D/O. USHA (LATE D/O. ANANDAN), IRAVIMANGALATH, MUHAMA P.O., CHARMAMANGALAM, ALAPPUZHA-688525.

¶13

7 SHANTHINI,

¶14

D/O. USHA (LATE D/O. ANANDAN), KUDUMBATTU VELI, S.N. PURAM, ALAPPUZHA-688582.

¶15

8 RETHI, D/O. ANANDAN, PUTHEZHATHU, KURUPPAMKULANGARA, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688539.

¶16

9 RENUKA, D/O. ANANDAN, THOTTUNGKAL, MUHAMA P.O., ALAPPUZHA688539.

¶17

BY ADV D.PREM KAMATH

¶18

WP(C) NO. 2492 OF 2022 2

¶19

RESPONDENTS:

¶20

1 RADHAMONY, W/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR, RADHA SADANAM, MAYITHARA MARKET P.O., CHARAMANGALAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA688539.

¶21

2 VIKRAMAN NAIR, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR, DEVI KRIPA, CHARAMANGALAM, S.N. PURAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688582.

¶22

3 GEETHAMONY, D/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR, RADHA SADANAM, MAYITHARA MARKET P.O., CHARAMANGALAM, CHERTHALA-688539.

¶23

4 RAMANADAN, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR, RADHA SADANAM, MAYITHARA MARKET P.O., CHARAMANGALAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA688539.

¶24

5 ARUNKUMAR, S/O. VASUDEVAN NAIR, RADHA SADANAM, MAYITHARA MARKET P.O., CHARAMANGALAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA688539.

¶25

6 VIJAYAKUMARI, D/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR, RADHA SADANAM, MAYITHARA MARKET P.O, CHARAMANGALAM, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA 688539.

¶26

7 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE, KANJIKKUZHI, ALAPPUZHA 688525.

¶27

8 THE TAHASILDAR (L.R), CHERTHALA TALUK, POLICE STATION ROAD, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA 688524.

¶28

9 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BESIDE ZILLA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA 688001.

¶29

BY ADV T.JAYAKRISHNAN SHRI.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶30

SMT MABLE C KURIAN, SR GP

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

WP(C) NO. 2492 OF 2022 3

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The sole relief sought for by the petitioners

¶35

herein is that the competent among respondents 7 and

¶36

8 be directed to take up Ext.P8 representation and accede to it, wherein, they have requested for the transfer of registry of the property in their favour, in compliance with Ext.P6 order issued by the Tahsildar (Land Records).

¶37

However, the afore request of Shri.D.Prem

¶38

Kamath - learned counsel for the petitioners, was opposed by Shri.R.Krishna Kumar - learned counsel appearing for the party respondents, saying that Ext.P6 is an order which his clients came to be aware of only when the copy of this writ petition was received by them; and it is evident therefrom that same has been settled without even affording them an opportunity of being heard. He submitted that his clients, therefore, propose to challenge Ext.P6 appropriately, for which purpose, he requested that this Court grant them liberty.

¶39

WP(C) NO. 2492 OF 2022 4

¶40

The learned Senior Government Pleader -

¶41

Smt.Mable C.Kurian, submitted that Ext.P6 was issued on 01.10.2021, after hearing all sides and therefore, that there does not appear to be any

¶42

legal impediment in the competent among respondents 7 and 8 considering Ext.P8 representation; but prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations on the entitlement of the petitioners to any relief and leave it to be decided by the competent Authority, in terms of law. She added that while such exercise is completed, the competent respondent be also allowed to hear the party respondents.

¶43

In reply, Shri.Prem Kamath - learned counsel

¶44

for the petitioners, submitted that Ext.P6, to his clients' information, was issued after notice to the party respondents and that they had impelled no objection against the same.

¶45

When I consider the afore rival contentions,

¶46

it is evident that, on one side, the petitioners require Ext.P6 to be complied with; while, on the

¶47

WP(C) NO. 2492 OF 2022 5

¶48

other, the party respondents impugn it on various grounds. This Court is not in a position to enter into the merits of either of these contentions and I

¶49

am certainly of the view that if the party respondents want to challenge Ext.P6, it is

¶50

certainly up to them, provided they do it within the parameters of law.

¶51

In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the competent among respondents 7 and 8 to take up Ext.P8 representation of the petitioners after a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, which period can be used by the party respondents to file an appropriate statutory Appeal against Ext.P6 before the competent Authority.

¶52

Depending upon any Appeal to be filed by the

¶53

party respondents or a decision arrived at therein, the competent among respondents 7 and 8 will decide

¶54

Ext.P8, after affording necessary opportunity of

¶55

being heard to all sides; thus culminating in an

¶56

appropriate order and necessary action thereon

¶57

WP(C) NO. 2492 OF 2022 6

¶58

without any avoidable delay, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶59

Needless to say, while the afore exercise is completed by the competent among respondents 7 and 8, they will advert specifically to Exts.P3 and P4 judgment and decree of the competent Civil Court, which the petitioners assert have now become final.

¶60

Sd/-

¶61

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶62

JUDGE

¶63

MC/23.3

¶64

WP(C) NO. 2492 OF 2022 7

¶65

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2492/2022

¶66

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶67

Exhibit	P1 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 22/01/1985.
Exhibit	P2 TRUE COPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 26/06/1987.
Exhibit	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/07/2011 IN A.S. NO. 81/2003 OF THE SUB COURT, CHERTHALA.
Exhibit	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DECREE DATED 11/07/2011IN AS NO.81/2003 OF THE SUB COURT, CHERTHALA.
Exhibit	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/10/2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS.
Exhibit	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/10/2021 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/10/2021 OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REPRESENTATION DATED 18/12/2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS.

Ambika, v. Radhamony

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambika, v. Radhamony

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

Rajan .T.T Vs State of Kerala

Shankar Narayanan v.B., Vs the Tahsildar, Aluva Taluk Office

Prakasan Vs State of Kerala

Rajan E.K. Vs T. K. Jayaraj

V.Sivaji., Vs Sub Registrar

The Csb Bank Ltd., Vs the Sub Registrar