Kerala High Court
P.M. Ashraf Aged 45 Years vs The District Collector
Author: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/8TH PHALGUNA 1934
WP(C).No. 4832 of 2013 (D)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
----------------
P.M. ASHRAF AGED 45 YEARS
S/O. MUSTHAFA, PUTHUKADAN HOUSE, VENGOLA WEST VILLAGE
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY
RESPONDENTS:
----------------
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682030.
2. THE TAHSILDAR
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, ERNAKULAM-683542.
3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER
ARAKAPADY VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682203.
4. THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER
VENGOLA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683250.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER ADV. MR. GEORGE MECHERIL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
27-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 4832 of 2013 (D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXT.P1 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ARAKAPADY DATED 21-2-12.
EXT.P2 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT
DATED 5-12-12.
EXT.P3 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE LAND.
EXT.P4 TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
/TRUE COPY/
P.S. TO JUDGE.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
..............................................................................
W.P. ) No. 4832 OF 2013
.........................................................................
Dated this the 27th February, 2013
J U D G M E N T
The case of the petitioner is that the property belonging to the petitioner is a 'purayidam' having reclaimed years back and that the petitioner has effected quite a lot of improvements by way of Coconut palms, 'pala' trees, Mango trees etc as reflected from Ext.P3 photograph. It is contended that, the property happens to be shown as 'Nilam' in the revenue records, which however does not reflect the actual physical nature of the property. It is stated that a 'residential building' is also located in the said property, surrounded by compound walls on all the four sides.
2. During the course of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the only relief sought for is for issuance of a direction to the second respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P4 representation, within a reasonable time to have reclassification of land. It is also stated that power and authority is vested with the second respondent in this regard, in W.P. ) No. 4832 OF 2013 2 view of the law declared by this Court in 2012(3) KHC 273 (Jalaja Dileep vs. RDO)
2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4, in the light of law declared by this Court in 2009 (3) KLT 899 (Shahanaz Shukkoor vs. Chelannur Grama Panchayat ) and Jalaja Dileep vs. RDO (2012(3)KHC 273)after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, at the earliest , at any rate, within 'six' weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE lk