Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THOMAS MICHAEL, MANNARKATTU VEEDU versus LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


THOMAS MICHAEL, MANNARKATTU VEEDU v. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER - WP(C) No. 34157 of 2006(N) [2007] RD-KL 2314 (31 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 34157 of 2006(N)

1. THOMAS MICHAEL, MANNARKATTU VEEDU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
... Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

3. THE TAHASILDAR,

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

Dated :31/01/2007

O R D E R

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J

W.P(C).No.34157 OF 2006

Dated this the 31st day of January, 2007



JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader.

2. According to the petitioner, he is in possession and enjoyment of 22 cents of land in Sy.No.62/10C of KDH village in Idukki district from 1971 and as per Ext.P1 Kuthakapattam agreement, the third respondent gave possession of the property to the petitioner in 1986 and that Ext.P3 receipt would show that rent was accepted from the petitioner even after the period of the Kuthakapattam. According to the petitioner, he has made Ext.P4 application for assignment of land. However, on the allegation that respondents 3 and 4 are threatening to evict the petitioner in summary eviction procedure under the Land Conservancy Act, this writ petition is filed seeking a direction to consider Ext.P4 and also to desist from dispossessing the petitioner. WPC.34157/06 Page numbers

3. For one thing, if there is an application under the Land Assignment Act in the form of Ext.P4, the competent statutory authority will have to consider the same on merits . But that does not necessarily mean that under the cover of such an application any intruder of the property shall be in possession without facing any decision under the Land Conservancy Act. The Act itself contains protective measures for having the occupation of land.

4. On 21.12.2006, this Court had issued an interim order directing the petitioner to file an affidavit stating the details of property owned by him and his family members within the State. However, no such affidavit has been filed. In the aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing that if the competent among the respondents has received Ext.P4 and is pending, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. The WPC.34157/06 Page numbers competent officer will make an endeavour to finally dispose of any such application within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that this judgment does not, in any manner, touch upon the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner to such assignment. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge kkb.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.