IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HARISANKAR V. MENON, J
JOSEPH ANTONY – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 40301 OF 2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. assessment of legal representation for the petitioners. (Para 1) |
| 2. claim of possession and the conflict regarding land ownership. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. no documents presented by the panchayat to support its claim. (Para 5) |
| 4. court directs decision-making on the application by the 6th respondent. (Para 6) |
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri. K.S. Bharathan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Santhosh P. Poduval, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8, and Sri. T.P. Sajan, the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest).
2. The 1st petitioner is stated to be in possession of 65 cents of forest land in Sy. No. 825/P of Thekkumkara Village, Thalappilly Taluk. According to the 1st petitioner, since he has been continuously carrying out various agricultural operations on the said extent of land, he submitted Ext. P1 application under the Kerala Land Assignment Act before the 6th respondent seeking assignment of the property.
3. However, the said application has not been disposed of, primarily due to the claim raised by the 7th respondent Panchayat, which contends that the property forms part of its Asset Register. The Panchayat has also taken the stand that the petitioners are not in possession of the said property.
4. Taking note of the rival submissions, this Court, by an order dated 26.11.2025, directed the 7th respondent Panchayat to produce documents, if any, evidencing the conveyance of the subject property in its favour, in support of its contention.
5. Today, Sri. Santhosh P. Poduval, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 7 and 8, upon instructions, submitted that as of now, no documents are available with the Panchayat to substantiate the contention recorded by this Court in its order dated 26.11.2025.
6. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioners’ application for assignment (Ext. P1), referred to above, requires to be considered and disposed of.
Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the 6th respondent to take a decision on Ext. P1 application, after affording notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as the 7th respondent, at any rate, within a period of four months. Till such time, the parties shall maintain the status quo.
Sd/-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.