Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6373
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 16TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 7334 OF 2022 PETITIONERS:
1 BASHEER K K., AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. ABDU, KATTIKKUNNAM HOUSE, P.O.PALLIKKUNNU, KUMARAMPUTHUR, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 583.
2 ABDUL NASAR N., AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. LATE KUNHIRAYIN HAJI, NADUVAKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.MANNARKKAD, MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 582.
BY ADV P.JAYARAM RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD - 678 001.
2 THE LAND TRIBUNAL/SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND REFORMS), OTTAPALAM, MINI CIVIL STATION, P.O.KANNIYAMPURAM, OTTAPALAM - 691 014.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANNARKKAD - I VILLAGE OFFICE, P.O.MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD DISTRICT - 678 582.
4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
SMT. MABLE .C .KURIAN SR.G.P THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have approached this Court asserting that a suo motu proceedings, bearing S.M.No.1271 of 2017, has been initiated against them by the second 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.
2. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader, Smt.Mable C.Kurian, submitted that the aforementioned suo motu proceedings was initiated against the petitioners only recently and therefore, that this writ petition is premature.
3. Even though I find the afore submissions of the learned Senior Government Pleader to be valid, I am also aware that, as a Rule, this Court directs the competent Authority to dispose of such proceedings within a period of eighteen months. I, therefore, do not see why the petitioners should not be given the said benefit.
Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered, directing the 2nd respondent to complete proceedings in S.M.No.1271 of 2017, after following due procedure and after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the petitioner – as also any other interested person - as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than eighteen months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sri.P.Jayaram, learned counsel for the petitioners, at this time intervened to say that Ext.P2 is a relinguishment document and that the learned Land Tribunal be directed to consider the same also because the property consequent to it now vests with the second petitioner. This is a matter which the petitioners certainly can bring to the notice of the Land Tribunal and if so, it will be considered appropriately while the afore exercise is completed.
