Disposed

Ramadevi v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Jul 2024WP(C)/25942/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners in this writ petition sought directions to the Tahsildar to consider a representation regarding property mutation after a mortgage was redeemed. The single-judge bench directed the respondent Tahsildar to consider the representation after issuing notice to parties within two months and directed the petitioners to produce a copy of the redemption order.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation with notice to parties within two months; directed petitioners to produce the redemption order.

Ramadevi Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF JULY 2024 / 3RD SRAVANA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 25942 OF 2024

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

1 RAMADEVI

¶8

AGED 72 YEARS

¶9

D/O SUMATHY AMMA NANDANAM HOUSE, PORODE , VIZHINJAM
POST VENGANOOR VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN -
695521

¶10

2 KUMARI GEETHA AGED 64 YEARS

¶11

D/O SUMATHY AMMA NANDANAM HOUSE, PORODE , VIZHINJAM POST VENGANOOR VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695521

¶12

3 MAYA DEVI AGED 61 YEARS

¶13

D/O SUMATHY AMMA NANDANAM HOUSE, PORODE , VIZHINJAM
POST VENGANOOR VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695521

¶14

4 JAYASREE. D AGED 58 YEARS

¶15

D/O SUMATHY AMMA EREPUTHEN VEDU HOUSE, PANANGODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695523

¶16

BY ADV SAJI SANKARAN NAIR

¶17

RESPONDENT/S:

¶18

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE LAND REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECTRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

¶19

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION THIRUVARIANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043

¶20

3 THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, EAST FORT, PAZHAVANGADI THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023

¶21

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER , VENGANOOR VILLAGE , VENGANOOR POST THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN CODE., PIN - 695523

¶22

5 SANGEETH RAJ S/O SREEDHARAPPANIKKAR, AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETETIONERS, SREEJA NIVAS POOROTUKONATH THEATRE JUNCTION, VIZINJARN POST THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN – 695521

¶23

WP(C) NO. 25942 OF 2024

¶24

-2-

¶25

R1 TO R4 BY SRI. SUNIL KURIAKOSE, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 25.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

WP(C) NO. 25942 OF 2024

¶27

-3-

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The writ petition is preferred by the petitioners aggrieved by

¶30

the non consideration of Ext.P1 representation by the 3^rd respondent Tahsildar.

¶31

It is stated that the deceased mother of the petitioners, Sumathy Amma, had obtained 12.30 Ares of property in Sy.No.528/3 in Venganoor Village, Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, Thiruvananthapuram District, along with other properties as per a partition deed. It is further stated that the petitioners herein are the only legal heirs of Sumathy Amma and the said property was mortgaged as an ottii and the ottii was redeemed as per the order dated 07.06.1977 in O.S.No.136/1975 of Additional Munsiffs CourtIII, Thiruvananthapuram. In the light of the said redemption, the property was taken possession by the petitioners and had constructed a compound wall and they are stated to be in possession and enjoyment of the property.

¶32

It is further contended that the petitioners are staying in

¶33

WP(C) NO. 25942 OF 2024

¶34

-4-

¶35

different parts of India with their husbands in connection with their employment, for long time. Utilizing the situation, the 6^th respondent concocted some documents and managed to effect mutation in the name of the 6^th respondent. In such circumstances, the petitioners approached the 3^rd respondent by preferring Ext.P1 representation.

¶36

Today when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners will be satisfied if this Court passes a direction to the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1.

¶37

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Pleader.

¶38

Considering the limited nature of prayer sought for in the writ petition, I am of the considered opinion that the 3^rd respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 representation, after issuing sufficient notice to the parties involved in the matter, within a period of two moths from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners are also directed to produce a copy of the

¶39

WP(C) NO. 25942 OF 2024

¶40

-5-

¶41

order dated 07.06.1977 in O.S.No.136/1975 of the Additional

¶42

Munsiffs Court-III, Thiruvananthapuram, before the 3^rd respondent.

¶43

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

P.M.MANOJ

JUDGE

25.07.2024

WP(C) NO. 25942 OF 2024

¶50

-6-

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25942/2024

¶52

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1

¶53

TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED
22/02 /2023 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

Ramadevi v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramadevi 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

Geetha.P.C. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Limited

V.Somasekharan Nair Vs State of Kerala

P.D.Jayan Vs the Excise Commissioner

Islamic Educational Movement Feroke Petta Vs Union of India

Roy Mathew. C, Vs Kerala Water Authority

Roy Mathew Vs Kerala Water Authority