Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

Abdul Rasheed vs The Deputy Collector (Lr) on 5 July, 2017

Author: P.B.Suresh Kumar

Bench: P.B.Suresh Kumar

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT:

          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

     WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2017/14TH ASHADHA, 1939

                  WP(C).No. 22226 of 2017 (C)
                   ---------------------------


PETITIONER:
-----------

           ABDUL RASHEED,
           S/O.KUNHAMMAD HAJI,
           AGED 49 YEARS, MANDAKATHINGAL HOUSE,
           AREEKKAD, THALAKKADATHUR P.O.,
           MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.


            BY ADV. SRI.M.A.FAYAZ

RESPONDENT:
-----------

           THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR)
           COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION,
           MALAPPURAM-676505.


           BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN


       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
       ON  05-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
       FOLLOWING:

mbr/

WP(C).No. 22226 of 2017 (C)
----------------------------

                            APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1:     PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO.1425/2016 OF THE TIRUR
                SRO.

EXHIBIT P2:     PHOTOCOPY OF LAND TAX RECEIPT.

EXHIBIT P3:     PHOTOCOPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE
                RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:          NIL.



                                           //TRUE COPY//


                                           P.S. TO JUDGE
mbr/



                     P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

                 --------------------------------------------

                     W.P.(C).No.22226 of 2017

        ---------------------------------------------------------------

               Dated this the 5th day of July, 2017

                           J U D G M E N T

Suo motu proceedings have been initiated under the Kerala Land Reforms Act in respect of a property in the possession of the petitioner. The limited prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondent to complete the said proceedings within a time frame. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant the limited prayer made by the petitioner.

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to complete the suo motu proceedings initiated in respect of the property in the possession of the petitioner, viz, S.M. No.383 of 2017, within one year from today.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR JUDGE rsr