Petitioner challenged lack of action on representation regarding land allotment. Court directed Tahsildar to dispose of representation within three months, considering prior judgments and available land for encroachment.
Directed Tahsildar to dispose of petitioner's representation regarding land allocation within three months after hearing interested parties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 2642 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
R.SHEEJA, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. R.M. PARAMESWARAN, SWARARAGASUDHA, SREECHITRA NAGAR, PANGODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 006.
BY ADVS.T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ K.P.MAJEED MOHAMMED SADIQUE.T.A
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TAHSILDAR(LR), L.R. TAHSILDAR'S OFFICE, KOTTAIKAKAM, PAZHAVANANGADI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 2642 OF 2022
-2-
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges that, in spite of the directions in Ext.P6 judgment dated 08.12.2020, in W.P.(C) No.27110/2020, no action has been taken by the competent Authority, thus constraining her to have preferred Ext.P9 representation before the 1st respondent – Tahsildar(LR). The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P9 be directed to be taken up and disposed of by the said Authority, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
WP(C) NO. 2642 OF 2022
-3-
luculent that, on an earlier occasion, the petitioner
had approached this Court and obtained Ext.P6 judgment, whereby, a learned Judge of this Court had directed the Tahsildar to implement the directions of the District Superintendent of Survey,
Thiruvananthapuram, dated 06.11.2020 - a copy of
which was appended to the said writ petition as Ext.P5.
Ext.P9, his client has also requested that the factum of encroachment be taken note of and land available be substituted, I am certain that these are matters which will need to be considered by the Tahsildar in its proper perspective, after hearing her.
Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the 1st respondent – Tahsildar (LR), to take up Ext.P9 representation and dispose of same, adverting to the directions in Ext.P6 judgment, as also the contentions of Sri.T.H.Abdul Azees afore recorded, and
WP(C) NO. 2642 OF 2022
-4-
after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as also any other interested person; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, I have not considered the claim of the petitioner, as made in Ext.P9, on its merits and that it is left to the Tahsildar to take an apposite decision thereon, after considering all germane and relevant aspects.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE
akv
WP(C) NO. 2642 OF 2022
-5-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2642/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PATTAYAM NO. L.A. III/95 DATED 30.01.1995 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND WAS ISSUED TO LATE GOPALA PILLAI BY THE TAHSILDAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TALUK. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO. 3925 OF 2011 DATED 14.12.2011 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR,S OFFICE PATTOM EXECUTED BY GOPALA PILLAI IN FAVOUR OF HIS DAUGHTER, THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 19/10/2011 IN RESPECT OF THE 7.750 CENTS OF LAND ISSUED TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER LATE GOPALA PILLAI.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 19/10/2021 ISSUED TO THE PREVIOUS OWNER LATE GOPALA PILLAI.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. J516873/18 DATED 06.11.2020 OF THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8/12/2020 IN WPC NO. 27110 OF 2020.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE IST RESPONDENT DATED 16.3.2020 RECEIVED ON AN APPLICATION AS PER THE R.T.I. ACT.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE PATTOM VILLAGE, OFFICER DATED 09.02.2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE IST RESPONDENT WITH TYPED COPY PRODUCED.
WP(C) NO. 2642 OF 2022
-6-
EXHIBIT P8 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE ENCROACHMENTS AND REMAINING AREA COVERED UNDER EXT. P1.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.10.2021 TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2.
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to direct the Tahsildar to dispose of the petitioner's representation regarding land allocation and encroachment concerns.
Whether sufficient land remains available next to the allotted land to address the claim despite alleged encroachment.
Whether the Tahsildar should consider the District Superintendent of Survey's directions and the petitioner's contentions before acting.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
W.P.(C) No.27110/2020Referred¶23
R.SHEEJA
THE TAHSILDAR(LR), L.R. TAHSILDAR'S OFFICE, KOTTAIKAKAM
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (RDO)
THE STATE OF KERALA
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Parties & counsel
