Disposed

B Koyamma v. Union of India

Kerala HC18 Mar 2022WP(C)/28842/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction for the 6th respondent (Deputy Collector) to register a representation. The Court directed the 6th respondent to transmit the representation to the 5th respondent (Sub-Registrar) for disposal within six weeks, noting the Sub-Registrar is likely the competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Directed 6th respondent to transmit Ext.P7 to 5th respondent for disposal within six weeks, affording petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

B Koyamma Vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 27TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 28842 OF 2021

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

B KOYAMMA, AGED 65 YEARS, S/O. (LATE) SAYED
PANDARATHIL, BAPPATHIYODA HOUSE, ANDROTH ISLAND,
UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682 551.

¶7

BY ADVS.
G.P.SHINOD
GOVIND PADMANAABHAN
AJIT G ANJARLEKAR
ATUL MATHEWS

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001.

¶10

2 UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, KAVARATTI ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682 555.

¶11

3 THE COLLECTOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP -682 555.

¶12

4 THE SECRETARY (REVENUE), UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682 555.

¶13

5 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND SUB-REGISTRAR ANDROTH ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP -682 551.

¶14

6 BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ANDROTH ISLAND, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP-682 551.

¶15

7 THE SECRETARY, LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT, MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE, 3RD FLOOR, 'C' WING, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KAHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI-110 003.

¶16

WPC 28842/21

¶17

¶18

BY ADVS.
K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR
SHRI.SAJITH KUMAR V., SC,
SMT. MABLE C. KURIAN SR .G.P

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 18.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 28842/21

JUDGMENT

The petitioner makes a singular plea that the 6 th respondent

¶24

be directed to take up and dispose of Ext.P7 within a time frame

¶25

to be fixed by this Court.

¶26

2 . Sri.Ajit G. Anjarlekar – learned counsel for the petitioner, explains that his client has been constrained to approach this Court since the 6 th respondent has refused to register Ext.P7 without assigning any reason; and consequently,

¶27

that his action can only be seen to be illegal and unlawful.

¶28

3. In response, the learned Standing Counsel for the

¶29

respondents – Sri.Sajith Kumar, submitted that the petitioner's request as made in Ext.P7 can certainly be considered by the competent Authority, but pointed out that such Authority is not

¶30

the 6 th but the 5 th respondent. He added that, therefore, if this Court is so inclined, the 6 th respondent can transmit Ext.P7 representation to the competent Authority and it can be then disposed of in terms of law, however, praying that this Court

¶31

may not make any affirmative declarations on the entitlement of

¶32

¶33

WPC 28842/21

¶34

the petitioner to any relief and leave it to the competent

¶35

Authority to take a final decision as per law.

¶36

In the afore circumstances, I direct the 6 th respondent to

¶37

transmit Ext.P7 representation to the 5 th respondent; in which event, the said Authority will dispose it of after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

Needless to say, since this Court has not entered into the merits of any of the contentions of the petitioner, they will be assessed and properly answered by the 5 th respondent while the afore exercise is completed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

RR

¶43

WPC 28842/21

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28842/2021

¶46

`PETITIONER EXHI`	`BITS`
`Exhibit P1`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED` `9.9.1994 OF THE ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT` `OFFICER, ANDROTH WITH TYPED COPY.`
`Exhibit P2`	`A TRUE COPY DOCUMENT NO:55/2006 DATED` `27.4.2006 OF SRO, ANDROTH.`
`Exhibit P3`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR` `ONLINE TOKEN REGISTRATION DATED` `16.8.2021 ISSUED TO MOHAMMED KHALEEL` `CHEKKIKULAM BY THE REGISTRATION` `DEPARTMENT.`
`Exhibit P4`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR` `ONLINE TOKEN REGISTRATION DATED` `16.8.2021 ISSUED TO ABDU SAMAD ACHAMMADA` `BY THE REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT.`
`Exhibit P5`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE FAIR COPY OF THE` `DOCUMENT THAT IS INTENDED TO BE` `REGISTERED.`
`Exhibit P6`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR` `ONLINE TOKEN REGISTRATION DATED` `20.8.2021, ISSUED BY THE REGISTRATION` `DEPARTMENT.`
`Exhibit P7`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED` `20.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER` `BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P8`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF` `LACCADIVE, MINICOY AND AMMINDIVI ISLANDS` `LAND REVENUE AND TENANCY REGULATION,` `1965.`
`Exhibit P9`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE` `ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF` `LAKSHADWEEP DATED 19.8.1988.`
`Exhibit P10`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED` `11.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR` `(HQ), ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION` `TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP.`
`Exhibit P11`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.2.2019` `ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT/COLLECTOR` `WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE 2ND` `RESPONDENT/ADMINISTRATOR.`
`Exhibit P12`	`A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DATED` `18.3.2020 IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA` `PERTAINING TO LACCADIVE, MINICOY AND` `AMMINDIVI ISLANDS LAND REVENUE AND` `TENANCY (AMENDMENT) REGULATION, 2020.`

¶47

WPC 28842/21

¶48

¶49

Exhibit P13A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 118TH
MEETING HELD ON 27.8.2019 OF THE
NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED
TRIBES.

B Koyamma v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Koyamma v. Union of India

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

K.B.Jayakrishnan Vs the Tahsildar

Kochurani, Vs State of Kerala

Alias K.T. Vs the Executive Engineer

Sahana Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Santhamma J. Vs Smt. Sari

Neethu Francis Vs State of Kerala