Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1944 PETITIONER: HANEEFA, AGED 65 YEARS S/O. ANDIPATTIL ABDURAHIMAN, KADAPATHRAKATH, THEKKETHIL, RAMLA MANZIL, VELIYANKODE (PO), BY ADV M.I.JOHNSON RESPONDENTS: 1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (REVENUE), SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001. 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 553. 3 THE SUB COLLECTOR, (REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER), TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 676 101. 4 THE TAHSILDAR, PONANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 679 579. 5 SHYLOCK.P.V., AGED 43 YEARS 6 SHAHEER.P.V., AGED 44 YEARS 7 BYJU.P.V., AGED 45 YEARS 8 MIRASH P.V., AGED 46 YEARS 9 SHAMEEMA.P.V., AGED 42 YEARS D/O. LATE ABDURAHIMAN, 10 PUTHIYA VEETTIL JAMEELA, AGED 67 YEARS W/O. LATE ABDURAHIMAN, BY ADV K.P.SHEREEF OTHER PRESENT: SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY.SR.G.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges that even though Ext.P2 application was made as early as on 03/08/2021, it has not been disposed of by the Tahsildar until now.
2. The afore submission of Sri.M.I.Jonhson - learned counsel for the petitioner, were, however, opposed by the learned Senior Government Pleader -
Smt.K.Amminikutty, saying that the petitioner, after making Ext.P2, preferred Ext.P4 application before the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and that said Authority has now called for a report from the Tahsildar. She submitted that, therefore, as and when the said Authority obtains the said report, necessary action on Ext.P2 can be completed.
3. Sri.K.P.Shereef - learned counsel appearing for respondents 5, 6, 9, and 10, submitted that his clients will
not stand in the way of Exts.P2 or P4 application being considered on its merits, but that they be also given an opportunity of being heard by the competent Authority while doing so.
4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is
evident that Ext.P2 application was first preferred by the petitioner before the Tahsildar - who is the competent Authority; but on the allegation that it has not been disposed of, he preferred Ext.P4 before the RDO. Since the RDO is not the competent Authority, I am certain that it is the Tahsildar who has to take up Ext.P2 and dispose it of in terms of law. Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the 4 th respondent - Tahsildar, to take up Ext.P2 representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same, after affording him, as well as respondents 5 to 10, sufficient opportunities of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Needless to say, as I have already said above, the RDO need not issue any further orders on Ext.P4 and same can be treated as being closed as a consequence.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ANB APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7067/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 15.04.2021 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELIYANKODE. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 03.08.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE R4. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 02.11.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE R2. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 18.11.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE R3.