Tomy Joseph vs The Sub Registrar
2021 Latest Caselaw 16144 Ker

WP(C) NO. 15478 OF 2021       1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
    TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 12TH SRAVANA, 1943
                     WP(C) NO. 15478 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

          TOMY JOSEPH,
          AGED 46 YEARS,
          S/O.P.K.JOSEPH, POZHOLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, ALUVA TALUK,
          ANGAMALY VILLAGE, ANGAMALY P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-
          683 872.

          BY ADVS.
          G.HARIHARAN
          PRAVEEN.H.
          K.S.SMITHA
          V.R.SANJEEV KUMAR



RESPONDENT/S:

    1     THE SUB REGISTRAR,
          SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, CHENGAMANAD, ALUVA TALUK,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 578.

    2     THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL),
          CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

    3     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
          REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-
          695 001.



          SMT K AMMINIKUTTY, SR GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 15478 OF 2021                   2



                                       JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

seeking the following relief:

(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 2nd respondent to consider and take note of the contention raised in Exhibit P4 objection against Exhibit P3 report and also to afford the petitioner with an opportunity of being heard if any adverse order is likely to be passed against the petitioner.

2. I have heard Sri.G.Hariharan, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3. In view of the law laid down by this Court in District Registrar v.

Lake Paradise [2001 (3) KLT 521], the 2nd respondent is bound to hear the

petitioner before taking any decision on Ext.P3 report. A formal order is also

required to be passed. In that view of the matter, the prayer sought for is only to

be allowed.

Resultantly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider

and take note of the contentions raised in Ext.P4 objection and hear the

petitioner before passing any orders on Ext.P3 report submitted by the 1st

respondent. The proceedings shall be finalized expeditiously, in any event,

within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This writ petition is disposed of.

SD/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE sru

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15478/2021

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1133/2021 OF SRO, CHENGAMANAD EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE SCHEDULE OF THE FAIR VALUE DECLARED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT IN SERIAL NO.9156 OF THE FAIR VALUE NOTIFICATION RELATING TO LAND COMPRISED IN RE-SURVEY NO.32/5 OF PARAKKADAVU VILLAGE.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 16.04.2021 SENT BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN FORM 1A ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 28.06.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.