Kerala High Court
Narayani.P vs District Collector on 14 February, 1972
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 7TH ASHADHA, 1940
WP(C).No. 11959 of 2011
-----------------------
PETITIONERS :
-----------
1 NARAYANI.P., AGED 72 YEARS,
W/O.LATE K.GOVINDAN PANICKER, NARAYANI
SADANAM, VALIYANNUR P.O., VARAM,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 534.
2 ARUNAKUMARI.K, AGED 48 YEARS,
S/O.LATE K.GOVINDAN PANICKER, NARAYANI
SADANAM, VALIYANNUR P.O., VARAM,
KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 534.
3 SIVADASAN.K, AGED 43 YEARS,
S/O.LATE K.GOVINDAN PANICKER, NARAYANI SADANAM,
VALIYANNUR P.O., VARAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 534.
4 MAHESH KUMAR, AGED 38 YEARS,
S/O. LATE K.GOVINDAN PANICKER,, NARAYANI SADANAM,
VALIYANNUR P.O., VARAM,, KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670 534.
BY ADV.SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN
RESPONDENTS :
-----------
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD
KASARAGOD, PIN-671 121.
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
KASARAGOD, PIN-671 121.
3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
(LAND ASSIGNMENT), MANJESWARAM,
KASARAGOD DISTRICT, PIN-671 323.
R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SUNILNATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 28-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
bp
29/6/2018
WP(C).No. 11959 of 2011
------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
---------------------
P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14/2/1972 BY THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
LAND ASSIGNMENT, KASARAGOD TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.
P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25/2/1977 SUBMITTED BY GOVINDAN
PANICKER THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.
P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28/12/2006 RECEIVED BY PETITIONERS
FROM THE TALUK OFFICE, KASARAGOD.
P4: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 9/11/2010 IN WPC NO.33776/2010 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
P5: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 6/1/2011 OF THE R2.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :
---------------------
EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY LATE SRI.GOVINDAN
PANICKER DATED 29/4/2002.
EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.L2-21409/2010 DATED 6/1/2011.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
29/6/2018
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
...............................................
W.P.(C) No. 11959 of 2011(T)
..............................................
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2018
JUDGMENT
This writ petition presents a very peculiar set of circumstances for the petitioners.
2. The first petitioner is the wife of late Sri.Govindan Panicker and petitioners 2, 3 and 4 are his children. When Sri.Govindan Panicker was alive, he had made an application for assignment of 2.87 Acres of land in R.S.No.197/4 of the Kudalamarkala Village and that his application was considered and allowed, thus granting him the assignment as per order No.271/X/70/Kudalamarkala, dated 14.07.1972, of the Special Tahsildar (LA), Manjeswaram. It appears that Sri.Govindan Panicker was directed to remit an amount of Rs.128.30 towards the land acquisition dues but that he had not remitted the same within the prescribed time. It also appears that Sri.Govindan Panicker had approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.33776 of 2010, which culminated in Ext.P4 judgment, wherein this Court directed the competent Authorities to W.P.(C) No. 11959 of 2011(T) 2 consider and pass orders on his application for issuance of patta over the said land. Consequent to the directions in Ext.P4 judgment, the Tahsildar, Kasaragod has issued Ext.P5 order rejecting the petitioners' request, for assignment of land, on the ground that Sri.Govindan Panicker is now no more. The petitioners say that this order is illegal and unlawful.
3. I have heard Sri.Sreejith, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
4. I have examined Ext.P5, which is the order impugned in this writ petition. The order records clearly that an assignment was allowed in favour of late Sri.Govindan Panicker as early as in the year 1972; but that he had omitted to remit the land acquisition dues. The order further goes to say that the land was, therefore, assigned to other eligible persons and that Sri.Govindan Panicker had, therefore, approached the Authorities for re-allotment of other lands, since the original land was no longer available. It is clear from the order that the application of Sri.Govindan Panicker was also considered and that he was directed to produce an income certificate and a property certificate. Even though Sri.Govindan W.P.(C) No. 11959 of 2011(T) 3 Panicker is recorded to have produced the property certificate before the Village Officer, before he could produce the income certificate, for which time had been granted to him till 28.12.2010, he unfortunately died on 02.12.2010. It transpires that his legal heirs, the petitioners herein, thereafter pursued the application but that it was rejected through Ext.P5 order.
5. It is clear from the aforementioned facts that, had Sri.Govindan Panicker been alive, the assignment of the new land may have fructified in his name. The only reason in Ext.P5, for now rejecting the application made by Sri.Govindan Panicker, is that he is now no more. However, the Tahsildar, Kasaragod has omitted to notice that his wife is still alive and that as a legal heir of Sri.Govindan Panicker she was certainly entitled to pursue the application made by him prior to his death. Viewed from that perspective, I cannot offer Ext.P5 order the approval of this Court and I am certain that the competent Authorities are bound to re-consider the claim of Smt.Narayani, the first petitioner herein, as well as the other petitioners, who are her children and that for such purpose, the application made by the late Sri.Govindan Panicker will have to W.P.(C) No. 11959 of 2011(T) 4 be again considered in terms of law, of course, after evaluating the entitlement of the first petitioner as also the other petitioners under the Land Assignment Act and Rules or such other applicable statutes, Regulations or Rules.
In the result, I order this writ petition and quash Ext.P5 order, consequently directing the Tahsildar, Kasargod to reconsider the request made by the petitioners, based on the application made earlier by the late Sri.Govindan Panicker and take a decision thereon, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. This exercise shall be completed by the Tahsildar, Kasaragod, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
This Writ Petition (Civil) is thus ordered.
sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE AMV/28/06/2018