Kerala High Court
K. Sentilkumar vs The District Collector, Idukki ... on 13 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 20001 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
K. SENTILKUMAR,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.A.R.KOCHADI MUTHIAH, ALAGARNAYAKANPATTY,
LEKSHMINAICKANPATTI P.O., UTHAPALAYAM TALUK, THENI
DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, PIN-624 302.
BY ADV K.K.MOHAMED RAVUF
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
KUILIMALA, PAINAVU, IDUKKI P.O., PIN-685 603.
2 THE TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR,
UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT,
PIN-685 553.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICE, SANTHANPARA, PIN-685
519, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. HANIL KUMAR SPL. G.P.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 20001 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court with a
specific plea that, in spite of the directions in
Ext.P2 judgment of this Court - which was delivered
as early as in the year 2005, only an extent of
11.93 Acres have been restored to him, even though
12.76 Acres had been earlier taken away alleging
arrears of commercial tax.
2. The petitioner alleges that though this Court
directed the entire 12.76 Acres to be returned, no
action has been taken by the competent Authorities
to give back the 83 cents, which is remaining after
the extent of 11.93 Acres have been restored to him.
The petitioner, therefore, prays that the competent
among the respondents be directed to do so, within a
time frame to be fixed by this Court.
3. I have heard Shri.K.K.Mohamed Ravuf, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Shri.Hanil Kumar,
learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the
official respondents.
4. Shri.Mohamed Ravuf added to the above
submissions pointing out that, in Ext.P4, the
District Collector has found that 12.71 Acres had
been taken over from his client and that only 11.93
Acres had been returned. He said that, therefore,
even going by simple mathematical calculations, an
extent of 81 or 83 cents are still liable to be
returned to his client, and relied upon Ext.P6
report of the Village Officer in substantiation.
5. In response, Shri.Hanil Kumar, learned
Special Government Pleader, submitted that the afore
allegations of the petitioner are not correct
because the entire extent which had been taken from
him has already been returned. He submitted that if
there is any other extent left, it is a matter which
can be verified only after a Survey; and that
petitioner cannot blame the respondents for having
caused any delay because he has approached this
Court more than 15 years after Ext.P2 judgment,
without explaining the cause for the delay.
6. Even when I hear the learned Special
Government Pleader as afore, the fact remains that
it is uncontested that this Court, through Ext.P2,
had directed the entire extent of land taken from
the petitioner to be restored to him. Hence, if
12.71 Acres mentioned in Ext.P4 had been so taken,
then it is upto the Competent Authorities to first
show that said extent was returned to the
petitioner; and this is particularly so when the
petitioner vehemently asserts that only 11.93 Acres
had been returned to him. This certainly is an
obligation on the part of the respondents and they
must take necessary action, after hearing the
petitioner, and conclude it without any further
delay.
7. In the afore circumstances, I direct the
petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent -
Tahsildar at 11.00 a.m. on 04.01.2022, along with
all documents he intends to rely on in
substantiation of his afore assertions; in which
event, said Authority will either hear him and
examine the documents or fix another convenient date
for the said purpose and then proceed to take
necessary action for restoration of any balance to
him as per law and as directed by this Court in
Ext.P2 judgment, without any avoidable delay, but
not later than four months thereafter.
8. Needless to say, if, during the afore
process, the Tahsildar deems it necessary that a
survey of the property is to be conducted or such
other necessary enquiry to be made, he will be at
liberty to do so, but shall complete the proceedings
resulting in the restoration of the entire property
taken away from the petitioner in terms of Ext.P2
judgment within the afore time frame.
9. At this time, Shri.K.K.Mohamed Ravuf, learned
counsel for the petitioner, submitted that certain
documents, including the Mahazar as per which the
property had been taken from his client is not now
available with him, because he was only a child at
that time.
10. I make it, therefore, clear that it is
enjoined on the part of the Tahsildar to examine all
these documents which are available on the files and
take a decision as per the afore directions
faithfully and diligently.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
MC/14.12
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20001/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE DEED NO.203/1974
OF SUB REGISTRAR OFFICE, UDUMBANCHOLA.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
16.05.2005 IN OP NO.6867/1998 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED
04.10.2005 ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX
OFFICER, ADIMALI.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2005
OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO.B1-
13433/05 DATED 19.11.2005 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 23.11.2005
PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 29.06.2018
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED
2=30.07.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE 83 CENTS
OF PROPERTY IN RESURVEY NO.60/1 OF
SANTHAMPARA VILLAGE.
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 03.12.2020
OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
