Kerala High Court
Nabeesa vs Special Tahsildar (Lr) on 11 August, 2021
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.
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.
"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.
(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
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
