Allowed

Ashraf Ali v. Land Tribunal

Kerala HC10 Jan 2022WP(C)/549/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge High Court at Ernakulam fixed 24 months for disposition of a suo motu proceedings initiated against the petitioner, holding the writ petition not premature despite proceedings starting in 2021. No statutory provisions or case laws cited.

What did the court decide?

Director 2nd Respondent to complete suo motu proceedings S.M.No.2177 of 2021 thoroughly, after affording necessary opportunity to the petitioner and any other interested person in the twenty four mont

Ashraf Ali Vs Land Tribunal — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 20TH POUSHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 549 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ASHRAF ALI AGED 52 YEARS S/o. ALVI, NEYAATHUR @ KOZHISSERI, PONMALA, MANJOOR, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676528 BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

2 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR LAND REFORMS, TALND TRIBUNAL, CIVIL STATION, TIRUR, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679101

¶11

OTHER PRESENT:

¶12

SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY SR.G.P.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C) NO. 549 OF 2022

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner has approached this Court asserting that a suo motu proceedings, bearing S.M.No.2177 of 2021, has been initiated against him by the 2^nd respondent - Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms); and seeks that the same be directed to be disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶18

In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that the afore mentioned suo motu proceedings was initiated against the petitioner only in 2021 and therefore, that this writ petition is premature.

¶19

Even though this Court normally fixes eighteen months time to complete proceedings, I am of the view that in this case it will be justified to expand it to twenty four months since the application of the petitioner has been made only a month ago.

¶20

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered, directing the 2^nd respondent to complete proceedings in S.M.No.2177 of 2021, after following due procedure and after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the petitioner – as also any other

¶21

WP(C) NO. 549 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

interested person - as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than twenty four months from the date of receipt of a

¶24

certified copy of this judgment.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶27

ANB

¶28

WP(C) NO. 549 OF 2022

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 549/2022

¶31

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶32

Exhibit1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27.12.2021 IN S.M.NO. 2177 OF 2021 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT

Ashraf Ali v. Land Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashraf Ali v. Land Tribunal

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

Abdu Rahman Vs Land Tribunal(Land Reforms)

Muhammed Ali, Vs Land Tribunal (Devaswom)

Muhammadali, Vs Land Tribunal (Devaswom)

1. Elsy Vs 1. the Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms), Land Tribunal, Tripunithura

Palakkodan Tharayil Ibrahim Kutty Vs Special Deputy Collector La NHAI

Kuttiyamu Haji Vs The Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms)