BY AD v. T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P5 appeal preferred by the petitioners and dispose of the same, in accordance with law within…
Judgment
STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, SECRETARIAT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD, PIN - 679101 THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678581 THE VILLAGE OFFICER AGALI VILLAGE OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678581 KALI S/O. SIVAN, CHITTOOR, AGALI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678581 CHATHAN S/O. CHINDAN, CHITTOOR, AGALI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678581 BY ADVS. SHRI.K.P.JAYACHANDRAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL() SPL.GP - JAFAR KHAN PETITIONERS: 1 RESPONDENTS: 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) No. 10114 of 2024 : 2 : VIJU ABRAHAM , J. =========================== WP(C) No. 10114 of 2024 ============================ Dated this the 1st day of April, 2024 J U D G M E N T Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P4 order and also seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P5 and P9.
Petitioners submit that they are in possession and enjoyment of 6 acres of property which is a garden land and the same was cultivated with pepper, coffee, rubber etc. Petitioners submit that by Ext.P4 order the 3rd respondent issued a direction to Tahsildar, Mannarkad to restore the property in respect of the petitioners since the same was in violation of the Kerala Restriction on Transfer by and Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act,
1999. Petitioners submit that Ext.P5 statutory appeal was preferred before the 2nd respondent, but till date no action has been taken on the same.
The learned Government Pleader Revenue upon instructions submitted that, it is true that Ext.P5 appeal is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent and the property has not been recovered back from the possession of the petitioners. WP(C) No. 10114 of 2024 : 3 :
Operative part
Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the 2nd respondent to take up Ext.P5 appeal preferred by the petitioners and dispose of the same, in accordance with law within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and any other affected parties. Till a decision is taken as directed above, further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. The request made by the petitioners in prayer No.3 is left open. With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of. VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE Sd/- sbk/- WP(C) No. 10114 of 2024 : 4 : APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10114/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 13.10.95 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 1.10.2010 TRUE COPY OF PERMIT DATED 7.3.2000 ISSUED BY DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, RUBBER BOARD TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 30.8.2014 IN TLA NO.773/87 AND 1446/87 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT TRUE COPY OF POSTAL RECEIPT DATED 15.6.2016 TRUE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD DATED 16.6.2016 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 25.2.2024 TRUE COPY OF PURCHASE CERTIFICATE DATED 11.5.78.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above said direction, the writ petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1999.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.