Allowed

Ashraf Ali v. Land Tribunal(Land Reforms)

Kerala HC6 Jan 2022WP(C)/288/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged suo motu proceedings initiated against him, seeking a time-bound disposition. Although the respondent argued the petition was premature, the single judge extended the usual 18-month limit to 24 months, directing the State to complete the proceedings expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed directing respondents to complete suo motu proceedings within 24 months from receipt of certified copy of judgment.

Ashraf Ali Vs Land Tribunal(Land Reforms) — Land Acquisition | 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. 288 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ASHRAF ALI AGED 52 YEARS S/O.ALAVI, NEYYATHOOR @ KOZHISSERI HOUSE, PONMALA P.O., MANJOOR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676528.

¶8

BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 LAND TRIBUNAL(LAND REFORMS), CIVIL STATION, TIRUR, TIRUR P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679101.

¶11

2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, (LAND REFORMS), LAND TRIBUNAL, CIVIL STATION, TIRUR, TIRUR P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679101.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SMT. MABLE .C .KURIAN - SR.G.P

¶14

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

¶15

WP(C) NO. 288 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The petitioner has approached this Court asserting that a suo motu proceedings, bearing S.M.No.2176 of 2021, has been initiated against him by the respondents and seeks that the same be directed to be disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶19

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

¶20

Even though this Court normally fixes 18 months time to complete proceedings, I am of the view that in this case it will be justified to expand it to 24 months since the application of the petitioner has been made recently .

¶21

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered, directing the respondents to complete proceedings in S.M.No.2176 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 24 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶24

¶25

WP(C) NO. 288 OF 2022

¶26

¶27

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 288/2022

¶28

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶29

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27.12.2021 IN S.M.NO.2176/2021 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

Ashraf Ali v. Land Tribunal(Land Reforms)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf Ali v. Land Tribunal(Land Reforms)

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

U.B.Ummrabba, Vs the Project Director

Yousaf, Vs the Special Tahsildar

Ayishakutty Vs Land Tribunal (Land Reforms)

K.S.Shaju, Vs State of Kerala

Kanakkarayi C Vs the Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms)

Unnikrishnan, Vs Land Tribunal