Roy Thomas vs Special Tahsildar (Land Tribunal) and

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Nov 30, 2021

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1708331

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1708331
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran
Decided On: Nov 30, 2021
Case Number: WP(C)/27090/2021

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Roy Thomas

Respondent

Special Tahsildar (Land Tribunal) and

Excerpt

.....asserting that a suo motu proceedings, bearing s.m.no.193 of 2021, has been initiated against him by the 1st respondent - special tahsildar (land tribunal); and seeks that the same be directed to be disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by this court.2. in response, the learned senior governmentpleader, smt.surya binoy, submitted that the afore mentioned suo motu proceedings was initiated against the petitioner only recently and therefore, that this writ petition is premature.3. when i hear the learned senior governmentpleader, as afore, it is without doubt this court has been ordering suo motu proceedings to be disposed of within a time frame. that said, though this court normally fixes eighteen months time for the competent authority to complete proceedings, i am of the view that in this case it will be justified to expand it to twenty four months, since the application of the petitioner has been made only very recently. resultantly, this writ petition is ordered, directing the 1st respondent to complete proceedings in s.m.no.193 of 2021, after following due procedure and after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the petitioner - as also any other interested person - as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than twenty four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. sd/- devan ramachandran judge raj/01.12.2021. appendix of wp(c) 27090/2021 petitioner exhibits exhibit p1 a true copy of the tax receipt dated 2-08-2021 exhibit p2 a true copy of the receipt issued by the first respondent dated 7-10-2021 exhibit p3 a true copy of the report of the 2nd respondent dated 29-07-2021

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 27090 OF 2021 PETITIONER: ROY THOMAS AGED 51 YEARS S/O. K. THOMAS, KUZHINJALI HOUSE, MELE PAYYANI, KALLADIKODE, KARIMBA II, PALAKKAD 678 596 BY ADVS. ANITHA MATHAI MUTHIRENTHY BASIL THOMAS MIDHUN S. KARUN RESPONDENTS: 1 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND TRIBUNAL) & THAHSILDAR (LAND RECORDS), OFFICE OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL, 2ND FLOOR, MINI CIVIL STATION, AGALI, ATTAPADI, AGALI 678 581 2 VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, KARIMBA II KALLDIKODE, KERALA 678 596 SMT.SURYA BINOY.SR.G.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 30th day of November, 2021. The petitioner has approached this Court asserting that a suo motu proceedings, bearing S.M.No.193 of 2021, has been initiated against him by the 1st respondent - Special Tahsildar (Land Tribunal); and seeks that the same be directed to be disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. In response, the learned Senior Government

Pleader, Smt.Surya Binoy, submitted that the afore mentioned suo motu proceedings was initiated against the petitioner only recently and therefore, that this writ petition is premature.

3. When I hear the learned Senior Government

Pleader, as afore, it is without doubt this Court has been ordering suo motu proceedings to be disposed of within a time frame. That said, though this Court normally fixes eighteen months time for the Competent Authority to complete proceedings, I am of the view that in this case it will be justified to expand it to twenty four months, since the application of the petitioner has been made only very recently. Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered, directing the 1st respondent to complete proceedings in S.M.No.193 of 2021, after following due procedure and after affording necessary opportunity of being heard to the petitioner - as also any other interested person - as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than twenty four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Raj/01.12.2021. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27090/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 2-08-2021 Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 7-10-2021 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 29-07-2021

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2021 Same Parties Roy Thomas vs Special Tahsildar (Land Tribunal) and Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran