Allowed

K.S.Shaju, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC6 Jan 2022WP(C)/25/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Village Officer to expeditiously decide the petitioner's RTI application for a Possession Certificate. The court held that pending attachments on a property are not a valid ground for the Village Officer to refuse issuance if no other legal impediments exist, ordering a decision within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to decide the RTI application for the Possession Certificate within two weeks, as attachments are not a valid ground for refusal.

K.S.Shaju, Vs State of Kerala — RTI and Transparency | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 16TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 25 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.S.SHAIJU, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.SALIM, KANJIRAPARAMBIL, ATTAPPILLY, CHALAKUDY TALUK, MATTATHUKUNNU VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 684.

¶8

BY ADV I.SHEELA DEVI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

2 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, CHALAKUDY CHALAKUDY P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, 680 307.

¶12

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MATTATHUR VILLAGE OFFICE, MOONNUMURI, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 684.

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY .SR.G.P.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 25 OF 2022 2

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking that the 3^rd respondent – Village Officer, be directed to allow Ext.P3 application made by him for issuance of a Possession Certificate with respect to the property which is in his exclusive ownership and possession on the strength of the title documents.

¶19

The petitioner alleges that action of the 3^rd

¶20

respondent in refusing to allow Ext.P3 is egregiously improper and therefore, prays that it be directed to be done within a time frame to be fixed by this court.

¶21

The afore submissions of the petitioner, as

¶22

voiced by his learned counsel Smt.I.Sheeladevi, were answered by the learned Senior Government Pleader –

¶23

Smt.K.Amminikutty, saying that 3^rd respondent is incapacitated from considering Ext.P3 because there appears to be certain attachments over the property in question. She, therefore, prayed that either this Court dispose of this writ petition allowing the 3^rd

¶24

respondent to take up Ext.P3 and decide it

¶25

WP(C) NO. 25 OF 2022 3

¶26

appropriately; or that petitioner be directed to honour the attachments over the property, so that an appropriate Possession Certificate can be issued.

¶27

I am afraid that I cannot find favour with the afore submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader because, even if there are attachments on the property in question, I fail to understand how the 3^rd respondent can refuse to issue Possession Certificate with respect to it, since it is well settled that the attachments run with the same. Obviously, therefore, if the only reason why Ext.P3 has not been decided is because there are attachments on the property, I cannot find favour with it.

¶28

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the 3^rd respondent – Village Officer, to take up Ext.P3 application of the petitioner and issue to him the Possession Certificate as requested by him, if there are no other legal impediments; however, without declining it merely on the basis that there are attachments pending on the property in question.

¶29

The afore shall be done by the 3^rd respondent as

¶30

WP(C) NO. 25 OF 2022 4

¶31

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶32

judgment.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶35

MC/6.1

¶36

WP(C) NO. 25 OF 2022 5

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25/2022

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED 16.10.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 02.11.2020 TO THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 05.02.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

K.S.Shaju, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S.Shaju, v. State of Kerala

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

U.B.Ummrabba, Vs the Project Director

Yousaf, Vs the Special Tahsildar

Ayishakutty Vs Land Tribunal (Land Reforms)

Kanakkarayi C Vs the Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms)

Unnikrishnan, Vs Land Tribunal

Ashraf Ali Vs Land Tribunal(Land Reforms)