Disposed

Siddick P.A v. the District Collector

Kerala HC8 Mar 2022WP(C)/3476/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Tahsildar to consider the petitioner's application for land assignment and decide it within six months, noting a No Objection Certificate from the Electricity Board. Disposal of any matter affecting the land was deferred pending the decision.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Tahsildar to dispose of the petitioner's application for land assignment within six months and defer any dispossession action.

Siddick P.A Vs the District Collector — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 3476 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SIDDICK P.A
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O ASSAINAR, PUTHIYIKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHITHIRAPURAM P O,
DOBIPALAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685565.

¶8

BY ADV A.A.SHIBI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶11

COLLECTORATE IDUKKI, PAINAV, IDUKKI-685 603.

¶12

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

¶13

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, DEVIKULAM, DEVIKULAM-685 613.

¶14

3 THE TAHSILDAR,

¶15

THALUK OFFICE, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685613.

¶16

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER PALLIVASAL VILLAGE, PALLIVASAL P O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN685565.

¶17

5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD , CHITHIRAPURAM P O, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685565.

¶18

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

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶20

08.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

W.P.(C) No. 3476 of 2022

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Dated this the 8 th day of March, 2022 .

¶25

The petitioner says that he is in possession of the land involved in this case for the last several decades, thus being eligible for it to be assigned in his favour, which also has been agreed to by the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB), as is evident from Ext.P8. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the application preferred by him, for assignment of land in question, before the 3^rd respondent – Tahsildar, be directed to be considered and disposed of without any further delay.

¶26

Sri.Arun Kumar – learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB, affirmed that Ext.P8 has already been issued by his client and that petitioner’s name has been included in the list of persons eligible for assignment. He submitted that, therefore, his client has no objection in

¶27

¶28

W.P.(C) No. 3476 of 2022

¶29

this Court passing an appropriate order in favour of the petitioner.

¶30

Smt.Mable C.Kurian – learned Senior

¶31

Government Pleader, admitted that the application of the petitioner for assignment of land in question is pending before the 3^rd respondent – Tahsildar and offered that necessary action on the same can be completed, after hearing the petitioner as also the officials of the KSEB and such other interested persons, within a period of six months.

¶32

Taking note of the afore submissions and adverting to Ext.P8 “No Objection Certificate” issued by the KSEB, I direct the 3^rd respondent – Tahsildar to dispose of the application of the petitioner, seeking assignment of land in question in his favour; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 3476 of 2022

¶35

judgment.

¶36

I make it clear that I have not considered the merits of the contentions of the petitioner and that his entitlement to assignment will be decided by the 3^rd respondent as per law, following due procedure.

¶37

It goes without saying that until such time as

¶38

the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner, action, if any, to dispossess the petitioner from the land in question shall be deferred.

¶39

This writ petition is thus ordered.

¶40

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶41

Raj/08.03.2022.

¶42

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 3476 of 2022

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3476/2022

¶45

`PETITIO`	`NER EXHIBITS`
`Exhibit`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF SALE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN` `PETITIONER AND MR.PHILIP DATED 6.11.2014.`
`Exhibit`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF RESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED` `BY PALLIVASAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE` `PETITIONER DATED 13.11.2020.`
`Exhibit`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B2/618/2016 DATED` `11.04.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF MAHAZAR SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH` `RESPONDENT ON 24.06.2019 TO 3RD RESPONDENT` `ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER.`
`Exhibit`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 22.10.2019` `SENT BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF PATTA NO.L.A 103/79/P ISSUED IN` `THE NAME OF MARY THANKAPPAN.`
`Exhibit`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF` `BEENA NAZER DATED 23.09.2014.`
`Exhibit`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF NOC ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF` `PETITIONER BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED` `24.06.2021.`
`Exhibit`	`P9`	`TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION SENT BY TALUK` `SURVEYOR TO 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 3.6.2020.`
`Exhibit`	`P10`	`TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION SENT BY 1ST` `RESPONDENT TO 3RD RESPONDENT DATED` `12.08.2020.`

Siddick P.A v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Siddick P.A v. the District Collector

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

Ponamma, Vs the Tahsildar

Arakkachal Narayanan Vs State of Kerala

Thomas M.C Vs State of Kerala

Mani Jacob Vs the District Registrar

Platinum Super Structures Pvt.Ltd., Vs State Bank of India

Mohan R, Vs Tahsildar