Quashed

Nazeema v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Jun 2022WP(C)/9287/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the residential certificate issued by the Grama Panchayat which excluded the petitioner's married daughter. The Court held that mere marriage does not constitute separate residence when documents like Aadhaar and Ration cards show the maiden address, quashing the certificate and directing a fresh enquiry.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Residential Certificate (Ext.P9) was quashed. The Grama Panchayat is directed to conduct a fresh enquiry and issue a new certificate within one month.

Nazeema Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 9287 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

NAZEEMA
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O. AJEES, AJEENA MANZIL., ROSEMALA, KULATHUPUZHA P.O,
KOLLAM 691 309
BY ADV B.MOHANLAL

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FOREST AND WILD LIFE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶10

2 THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, VAZHUTHACAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 014

¶11

3 THE WILD LIFE WARDEN SHENDURUNNY WILDLIFE DIVISION, THENMALA P.O, KOLLAM 691 013

¶12

4 THE TAHASILDAR (LAND RECORDS) TALUK OFFICE, PUNALUR P.O, KOLLAM 691 505

¶13

5 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KULATHUPUZHA VILLAGE, KULATHUPUZHA P.O, KOLLAM 691 310

¶14

6 THE KULATHUPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH KULATHUPUZHA P.O, KOLLAM 691 310, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADVS. ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE KERALA SHRI.MANOJ RAMASWAMY,SC,KULATHUPUZHA G.P SHRI.T.P.SAJAN, SPL. G.P. (FOREST)()

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO. 9287 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

JUDGMENT

¶19

Dated this the 21^st day of June, 2022

¶20

The petitioner is residing in House No.316 in Ward No.V of Kulathupuzha Grama Panchayat in Kollam District. After the floods of 2018, the Government introduced the Rebuild Kerala Development Programme containing cross-cutting and sector based recommendations on policy, regulatory and institutional action. One such action is the relocation of private settlements, following the procedure prescribed in Ext.P6 Government Order. For the purpose of resettlement, ‘family’ means a person his/her spouse, minor sons / daughter, minor brothers / sisters, father, mother and other relatives residing with him / her and dependent on him / her for their livelihood. It is also specified that certain persons will be treated as separate families even if they are currently living with other relatives. This includes, major son / daughter (over 18 years) irrespective of his martial status. The petitioner's case is that, even though daughter Ajeena Beevi is married, she is still residing with the petitioner and therefore entitled for to be considered as separate family. In support of the

¶21

WP(C) NO. 9287 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

contention, petitioner relies on Ext.P8 Family Membership Certificate issued by the Village Officer, containing the names of petitioner, her husband and daughter, Ajeena Beevi. Her grievance is against Ext.P9 certificate issued by the Kulathupuzha Grama panchayat in which only the petitioner and her husband are shown to be residing in House No.316.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that apart fro m Ext.P8, Ext.P5 tax receipt would also show that Ajeena Beevi is having right in the property at Kulathupuzha. According to the learned counsel, merely because Ajeena Beevi is married, the Panchayat cannot jump to the conclusion that she is residing separately.

¶25

Learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat submitted that Ext.P9 was issued after conducting due enquiry and as per information received, Ajeena Beevi is residing 60 Kms away from Rosemala in Kulathupuzha. Learned Special Government Pleader drew attention to decision No.2 in Ext.R3(b) minutes of the meeting of the State Level Empowered Committee (SLEC), which reads as under;

¶26

“2. The Committee decided to consider those

¶27

WP(C) NO. 9287 OF 2022

¶28

¶29

applicants who may not be temporarily residing in the settlement due to reasons such as education, hospital issues, etc, but have valid documents such as ration card, Aadhar card etc in the settlement proving he / she has been residing in the settlement, to be considered in the resident category.”

¶30

It is pointed out that Ext.P8 was issued by the Village Officer after taking into consideration the above documents.

¶31

After hearing the learned Counsel, I find merit in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that, merely because the daughter is married, the Panchayat cannot assume that she will be residing separately, particularly when documents like the Aadhar Card and the Ration Card still contain Ajeena Beevi’s maiden address. Moreover, the Village Officer, after due enquiry, had issued Ext.P8, wherein also Ajeena Beevi is shown to be residing with the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is only appropriate for the Panchayat to conduct a fresh enquiry as to the residential status of Ajeena Beevi.

¶32

In the result, the writ petition is ordered as under;

¶33

Ext.P9 certificate is quashed. The sixth respondent is directed to conduct enquiry regarding the residential status of the petitioner's daughter Ajeena Beevi and issue a fresh certificate.

¶34

WP(C) NO. 9287 OF 2022

¶35

¶36

While conducting such enquiry, relevant documents like Aadhar card, ration card etc., should also be taken into consideration. The fresh certificate as directed above shall be issued within one month

¶37

of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶39

¶40

WP(C) NO. 9287 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9287/2022

¶43

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS` `Exhibit P1`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `YEAR 2020-2021 DATED` `5TH RESPONDENT TO THE`	`LAND TAX RECEIPT FOR THE` `09-02-2021 ISSUED BY THE` `PETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P2`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `667409471917 OF THE P`	`AADHAR CARD NO.` `ETITIONER.`
`Exhibit P3`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `1272007570 OF THE PET` `ISSUED BY THE TALUK S` `DATED 15-03-2017`	`RATION CARD NO.` `ITIONER AND HER FAMILY` `UPPLY OFFICER, PUNALUR`
`Exhibit P4`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `448080271146 OF THE P` `SMT. AJEENA BEEVI`	`AADHAR CARD NO.` `ETITIONER'S DAUGHTER`
`Exhibit P5`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `11-10-2021 ISSUED BY` `THE PETITIONER'S DAUG`	`LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED` `THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO` `HTER SMT. AJEENA BEEVI`
`Exhibit P6`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `AND EA DATED 14-11-20` `GOVERNMENT`	`G.O (RT) NO 483/2018/P` `19 ISSUED BY THE`
`Exhibit P7`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `29-11-2021 ISSUED BY` `THE 5TH RESPONDENT.`	`ORDER NO B8-534/21 DATED` `THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO`
`Exhibit P8`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `CERTIFICATE CERTIFICA` `03-2022 ISSUED BY THE` `PETITIONER AND HER FA` `DAUGHTER`	`FAMILY MEMBERSHIP` `TE NO. 288/22 DATED 07-` `5TH RESPONDENT TO THE` `MILY EXCLUDING HER`
`Exhibit P9`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `NO A2-9035/2022 DATED` `THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO`	`RESIDENTIAL CERTIFICATE` `09-03-2022 ISSUED BY` `THE PETITIONER`
`Exhibit P10`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `02-2021 EXECUTED BETW` `DAUGHTER SMT. AJEENA` `SRI ABDUL KAREEM.`	`RENT AGREEMENT DATED 15-` `EEN THE PETITIONER'S` `BEEVI AND THE LANDLORD`
`Exhibit P11`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE PRINCIPAL, GOOD S` `KULATHUPUZHA DATED 10`	`CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY` `HEPHERD PUBLIC SCHOOL,` `-03-2022`
`Exhibit P12`	`THE TRUE COPY OF THE` `MUSHROOM CULTIVATION` `DATED 05-03-2022 TO T` `SMT. AJEENA BEEVI.`	`REGISTRATION OF THE` `ISSUED BY THE FSSAI` `HE PETITIONER'S DAUGHTER`

¶44

WP(C) NO. 9287 OF 2022

¶45

¶46

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Annexure R3(a)TRUE COPY OF THE GUIDELINES FOR THE VOLUNTARY
RELOCATION OF WILLING ELIGIBLE FAMILIES FROM
THE PRIVATE SETTLEMENTS FROM INSIDE THE
FORESTS
Annexure R3(b)TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE FOURTH
MEETING OF THE STATE LEVEL EMPOWERED
COMMITTEE (SLEC) HELD BY CHIEF SECRETARY ON
3.12.2021 AT 10:30 AM

Nazeema v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazeema v. State of Kerala

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

Sinai Mar Thoma Church Vs the District Collector

Praveen Das, Vs the Ministry of Women and Child Development

Tbas - Ekk Consrtium Vs Kerala Irrigation Infrastructure Development Corporation

J. Abdul Vahid Vs the Secretary

Rajendra Babu.K.P Vs State of Kerala

Thankamma A.K. Vs State of Kerala