Allowed

Chandramathi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Dec 2023WP(C)/5771/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners belonging to Scheduled Castes challenged inaction regarding their application for 5 cents of land under the Life Mission Project. Though listed as eligible, no allotment was made. Court directed the District Officer to decide on their claim considering documents proving no land ownership, within two months.

What did the court decide?

District Officer directed to hear petitioners and decide on land allotment claim within two months from receipt of judgment.

Chandramathi Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 5771 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 CHANDRAMATHI, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O SANKARANARAYANAN MARIYAPPAN, RAMAN BHAVAN HOUSE, NO. 431/5, CHANNANIKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 68653

¶8

2 SELVAKUMARI D, AGED 28 YEARS, D/O DHARMARAJ R. KARTHIKABAVAN, KANIYANMALA, CHANNANIKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686533

¶9

3 DURGADEVI K., AGED 24 YEARS, D/O KALIDAS AYILAPERI HOUSE, CHANNANIKKADU P.O., PANACHIKKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686533

¶10

4 VELMURUKAN, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O LATE GOVINDAN RAMAN BHAVAN HOUSE, NO. 431/5, CHANNANIKKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686533

¶11

5 G. KUMAR., AGED 34 YEARS, S/O GOVINDAN, CHANNANIKKADU P.O., PANACHIKKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN – 686533

¶12

BY ADVS.
PRAFIN JOSEPH ZACHARIA
JOSEKUTTY MATHEW
PRASEENA ELIZABETH JOSEPH

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001

¶15

2 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LIFE (LIVELIHOOD INCLUSION OF FINANCIAL EMPOWERMENT) MISSION, OFFICE OF THE LIFE MISSION, P T C TOWERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 695001

¶16

3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE KOTTAYAM DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM., PIN – 686002

¶17

WPC 5771/23

¶18

¶19

4 THE DIRECTOR, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001

¶20

5 DISTRICT OFFICER, SCHEDULED CASTE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686002

¶21

BY ADV
SMT.LATHA THANKAPPAN – SPL GP

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 15.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

WPC 5771/23

JUDGMENT

The petitioners – who belong to the Scheduled Caste community – say that they had applied for assignment of 5 cents land under the ‘Life Mission Project’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Project’ for short), of the Government of Kerala. They say that their application has been produced on record as Ext.P 1, which was accompanied by all relevant and germane documents and that this is evident from the fact that each of them has been included in the list of eligible persons, as luculent from Ext.P 2.

¶27

The petitioners assert that, however, in spite of the fact that they have so been included, no action has been taken by the competent Authorities thereafter; thus denying them the benefit of allotment of land, though fully entitled. They rely on Ext.P 3 judgment of this Court, delivered in favour of similarly placed persons; and pray that the respondents be directed to allot them the requisite land, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court, as per Ext.P2 eligibility list.

¶28

3 . In response to the afore submissions made by Sri.Prafin

¶29

¶30

WPC 5771/23

¶31

Joseph Zacharia – learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Latha Thankappan – learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that, even though the petitioners are included in Ext.P2 eligibility list, they will be entitled to assignment of land only if certain other criteria – including that they do not have any other land in their names – are satisfied. She submitted that, therefore, this Court may allow the 5 th respondent – District Officer, to take a decision on the petitioners’ claims; and undertook that this will be done without any . avoidable delay

¶32

4 . In reply, Sri.Prafin Joseph Zacharia pointed out that, the certificate showing that his clients have no land at all, in any manner whatsoever, has been produced on record as Ext.P4; and added that this has been issued by the Village Officer – Panachikkadu, after detailed enquiry. He argued that, therefore, there is no impediment in the way of his clients being allotted the land.

¶33

5 . I must say that there is great force in the afore submissions made on behalf of the petitioners because, when they have already been included in Ext.P2 eligibility list, they are entitled

¶34

WPC 5771/23

¶35

¶36

to be given the benefits thereunder, unless there are other legal impediments standing in the way. Prima facie, this Court do not see any such impediment and therefore, I am of the firm view that the th 5 respondent must consider the petitioners for allotment of land, adverting to Ext.P4 and every other germane inputs.

¶37

In the afore circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed and the 5 th respondent – District Officer is directed to hear the petitioners and take a decision on their claim for allotment of land, adverting to Ext.P4 and any other document that may be required; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

RR

¶40

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

WPC 5771/23

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5771/2023

¶45

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1THE NOTICE ISSUED TO 1ST PETITIONER BY 2ND
RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF ELIGIBILITY LIST ISSUED
BY 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN WP(C) NO. 16446/2022
DATED 12.12.2022
Exhibit P4TRUE COPY OF NON-AVAILABILITY CERTIFICATE
DATED 28.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER PANACHIKKADU TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
Exhibit P5THE TRUE COPY OF NON AVAILABILITY
CERTIFICATE DATED 28.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER PANACHIKKADU TO THE 2ND
PETITIONER
Exhibit P6THE TRUE COPY OF NON AVAILABILITY
CERTIFICATE DATED 12.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER PANACHIKKADU TO THE 3RD
PETITIONER
Exhibit P7THE TRUE COPY OF NON AVAILABILITY
CERTIFICATE DATED 28.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER PANACHIKKADU TO THE 4TH
PETITIONER
Exhibit P8THE TRUE COPY OF NON AVAILABILITY
CERTIFICATE DATED 04.01.2023 ISSUED BY THE
VILLAGE OFFICER PANACHIKKADU TO THE 5TH
PETITIONER

Chandramathi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandramathi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaimon James Vs Union of India

S Remadevi Vs the District Collector

V.P.Rajendran, Vs Spices Board

Muhammed Nizam Kt Vs 1) State Bank of India

Basim.K.P., Vs the Union of India

Sarala W/O Sukumaran Vs Union of India Represented by General Manager, Southern Railway