Kerala High Court
Jayakrishnan K.B vs The District Collector on 6 August, 1990
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/18TH ASWINA, 1939
WP(C).No. 26430 of 2012 (C)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
----------
JAYAKRISHNAN K.B,
S/O.LATE BALAKRISHNAN, NAVILUMTHODU VEEDU,
MEENKARA P.O., MUTHALAMADA, CHITTUR TALUK,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.NOW RESIDING AT "LOTUS HOUSE",
UPPUMPADAM,KINASEERI P.O.,PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.R.HARISHANKAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
PALAKKAD.678001
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.678001
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THENKURISSI VILLAGE, THENKURISSI POST,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
4. VINAYAK KOMBAN,
S/O.RAM MOHAN, KUNNUKADU, THENKURISSI POST,
ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT A.C.VIDHYA
R4 BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN
SMT.GEETHA P.MENON
SRI.N.AJITH
SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN
SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 10-10-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
K.V.
WP(C).No. 26430 of 2012 (C)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
-----------------------
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE WILL VIZ. DEED NO.149/2009 ON THE FILE
OF THE SUB REGISTRY OFFICE, CHITTUR.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT APPLICATION DATED 06.08.1990
SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LAND TRIBUNAL, KUZHALMANNAM.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF AA NO.27/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE APPELLATE
AUTHORITY (LAND REFORMS), THRISSUR.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 12.12.2008 SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1.
EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 12.12.2008 SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL
---------------------
/TRUE COPY/
K.V. P.S.TO JUDGE
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
===================== W.P.(C) No.26430 of 2012 - C ========================== Dated this the 10th day of October, 2017 Judgment The petitioner and the 4th respondent are rival claimants to a property; the latter claiming a lesser extent. The petitioner's mother was a claimant before the Land Tribunal, Kuzhalmannam, which was initially dismissed for default and an appeal was filed; numbered as A.A No.75/1995, which was allowed in the year 1999, remanding the matter for fresh consideration. However, in the meanwhile suo motu proceedings were initiated on behalf of the 4th respondent as S.M No.441/2006 before the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam and he also obtained Purchase Certificate.
2. When the Original Application, filed by the mother of the petitioner was restored; the 4th respondent 2 W.P.(C) No.26430/2012 sought impleadment in the O.A. The petitioner's mother then, coming to know of the purchase certificate already issued, filed an appeal numbered as A.A. No.27/2009 before the Appellate Authority with a delay of 500 days. The delay was condoned and the appeal was taken on file.
3. At that point, the 4th respondent challenged the said orders by O.P.(C) No.3728 of 2013. The Appellate Authority then rejected the appeal of the petitioners mother, for reason of non-production of certified copy. A writ petition, W.P.(C) No.1013 of 2010, was filed against the dismissal and posted along with the O.P. By the time, the petitions were heard, the petitioner's mother had obtained the certified copy and produced the same before the Appellate Authority. In such circumstance, W.P.(C) No.1013 of 2010 and O.P. No.3728 of 2013 were disposed of by judgment dated 10.02.2014, directing the Appellate Authority to decide the issue, within a 3 W.P.(C) No.26430/2012 period of two months. There was also a direction to the Appellate Authority to consider whether both matters can be decided by the same Land Tribunal if the Appellate Authority orders a remand.
4. The Appellate Authority remanded the matter, which order was challenged by the 4th respondent in CR.P(L.R) No.480/2014. The challenge was negatived by this Court by judgment dated 10.11.2014, wherein there was a categorical direction to the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam to consider both the applications; one an original application, the other a suo motu proceeding together, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that even now the applications have not been finally disposed of. It is also submitted that the matter is posted on 11.10.2017 for hearing.
4 W.P.(C) No.26430/2012
5. Considering the fact that there is a specific direction to dispose of the matter, within a period of six months from that date, and also the fact that the issue is pending from 1999, the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam shall consider the matter and dispose of it, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, status quo shall be maintained and the petitioner or the 4th respondent shall not be allowed to pay any tax, with respect to the property.
The writ petition would stand disposed of without any observation on the merits of the rival claims which has to be decided by the Land Tribunal. No costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE SB/11/10/2017 // true copy // P.A to Judge