Full Judgment
WP(C) NO. 16190 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 20TH SRAVANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 16190 OF 2021 PETITIONER/S: NABEESA AGED 70 YEARS D/O.LATE KUNJAMMA, PALLITHAZHATHU VEEDU, PERUR P.O., LAKKIDI PERUR II VILLAGE, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD BY ADV V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL) RESPONDENT/S: SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.R) OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (L.R.), OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD 679 104 SRI SAYED M THANGAL, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 16190 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
(a) issue a writ of mandamus or any other order or direction and
direct the respondent to pass appropriate orders in S.M.No.265/2020 on the file of the Special Tahsildar (L.R), Ottapalam, Palakkad within a time limit as deems fit by this Hon’ble Court.
2. The petitioner states that she along with others are in possession of property admeasuring 0.0080 Ha. comprised in
Re.Sy.No.347/3 in Block No.89 of Lakkidi-perur - II Village. A suo motu proceeding has been initiated by the respondent under Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment) Rules, 1970, for assignment of the right, title and interest of the landlord vested in the Government under Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and for issuance of a certificate of purchase under Section 72K of the said Act, read with Rule 14 of the said Rules and the same is pending as S.M.No.265/2020. The petitioner is aggrieved by the delay in conclusion of the proceedings and her solitary prayer is for directions to the respondent to expedite the same.
3. I have heard Sri.Johnson Varikkappallil, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Sayed M.Thangal, the learned Government Pleader. WP(C) NO. 16190 OF 2021 3
4. Sri.Johnson Varikkappallil, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner would rely on the judgment of this Court in Narayanan Namboodiri v. The Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms) and another [Judgment dated 14.03.2018 in W.P.(C) No.28398 of 2017 and connected cases] and it is argued that similar directions be issued in this matter as well.
5. The learned Government Pleader submits that the directions issued by this Court in Narayanan Namboodiri (supra) can be followed.
6. I have considered the submissions advanced.
7. In Narayanan Namboodiri (supra), this Court took note of the
long pendency of matters before the Land Tribunals and it was felt that it would not be proper for this Court to issue orders to take matters out of turn of those cases wherein the petitioners were able to approach this Court. This Court had also issued directions to the Government to take measures to remove the stumbling blocks so that the proceedings could be expedited. In tune with the directions issued by this Court, orders were issued by the Government permitting the Village Officers to exercise powers of Revenue Inspectors. Directions were issued to keep cases filed by senior citizens in a special category with a view to expediting the same and the petitioners in those matters were directed to cooperate with the Land Tribunal in effecting
service of notice to the Landlords. Paragraph No.2 of the judgment is extracted below for convenience. WP(C) NO. 16190 OF 2021 4 “2. On consideration of the facts and circumstances as above, this Court is of the view that the following directions can be issued for expeditious disposal of the cases by the Land Tribunal:
(i) If it is felt that there is delay in obtaining reports through the
Revenue Inspectors on account of their shortage, the Land Tribunal is free to get the reports from the Village Officers concerned. It is the discretion of the Land Tribunal in what manner such reports should be obtained.
(ii) Utmost importance should be given for expeditious disposal of all the cases filed by the senior citizens. The Land Tribunal shall dispose such cases of senior citizens on seniority basis within six months.
(iii) In respect of all other cases, the Land Tribunal shall follow the
seniority of such cases and dispose the same within the maximum outer limit of 18 months unless there is a stay passed by the higher authorities. The Land Tribunal shall not break the seniority of such cases except for any directions being issued by this Court or any higher authority.
(iv) The parties are given liberty to take out notice to the land owners in such a manner in which the Land Tribunal deems fit to do so, including publications.
(v) In respect of the matters which are pending before the Deputy Collector, he shall follow the same procedure as mentioned above.
(vi) In respect of the proceedings in which all the steps have been completed which are ripe for passing orders as on today, the Land WP(C) NO. 16190 OF 2021 5
Tribunal shall pass orders within two months and the directions issued in earlier paragraphs would not affect those matters. However, in all other cases, the directions shall be strictly followed.
(vii) The Government order, G.O.(P).No.09/2018/ RD, dated 22.02.2018 will form part of this Judgment. (underline supplied)”
8. Having considered the facts and circumstances and the
submissions made across the Bar, I am of the considered opinion that the directions issued by this Court in Narayanan Namboodiri (supra) can be followed and necessary directions can be issued. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to dispose of S.M.No.265 of 2020, following the directions issued by this Court in Narayanan Namboodiri (supra) and in accordance with law. Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE IAP WP(C) NO. 16190 OF 2021 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16190/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 26.8.2020 RESPONDENS EXHIBITS:NIL