Maimuna vs The Special Tahsildar ( Lr )
2021 Latest Caselaw 16583 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 16583 Ker
Judgement Date : 11 August, 2021

Kerala High Court

Maimuna vs The Special Tahsildar ( Lr ) on 11 August, 2021

WP(C) NO. 16345 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. 16345 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

    1     MAIMUNA,
          AGED 51 YEARS
          D/O. LATE MUHAMMED HAJI, THARAMMAL HOUSE,
          PANANGATTUR P.O., TANUR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-686302.

    2     SUHARA,
          AGED 49 YEARS
          D/O. LATE MUHAMMED HAJI, THARAMMAL HOUSE,
          PANANGATTUR P.O., TANUR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676302.

    3     NAFEESA,
          AGED 45 YEARS
          D/O. LATE MUHAMMED HAJI, THARAMMAL HOUSE,
          PANANGATTUR P.O., TANUR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM-676302.

          BY ADVS.
          ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
          S.SREEDEV
          RONY JOSE
          SUZANNE KURIAN
          CIMIL CHERIAN KOTTALIL



RESPONDENT/S:

          THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR ( LR ),
          LAND TRIBUNAL-TIRUR, TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM-676101.




          SMT K AMMINIKUTTY, SR 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. 16345 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 other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to consider and finalise suo motu proceedings No.813/2020 on the basis of Ext.P2 report, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of one month

2. The petitioners state that they are in possession of property

admeasuring 34.22 ares in Re-Sy.No. 247/2 (Old Sy.No.280/4A) of Tanur

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.813/2020.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the delay in conclusion of the proceedings and

their solitary prayer is for directions to the respondents to expedite the same.

3. I have heard Sri.Enoch David Simon Joel, the learned counsel for

the petitioner and Smt. K.Amminikutty, the learned Senior Government

Pleader.

4. Sri. Enoch David Simon Joel, 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.

"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

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.