Bijoy K.T vs The Sub Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 14833 Ker

W.P(C).6297/2021
                                      1


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
       THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 24TH ASHADHA, 1943
                            WP(C) NO. 6297 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

             BIJOY K.T., AGED 42 YEARS
             S/O. BALARAMAN, J-13 QUARTERS, CALICUT UNIVERSITY,
             CALICUT UNIVERSITY P.O., MALAPURAM

             BY ADVS.
             M.PROMODH KUMAR
             SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN



RESPONDENT/S:

      1      THE SUB COLLECTOR
             MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, CIVIL STATION, THALASSERY,
             THALASSERY P.O., KANNUR-670 101

      2      K.P.LAKSHMI KUTTY, AGED 66 YEARS
             W/O. BALARAMAN, CHATHOTTU HOUSE, MATTANNUR P.O.,
             KOZHIKODE-670 702

             BY ADV ELDHO PAUL



OTHER PRESENT:

             SR.GP K.P HARISH




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).6297/2021
                                      2




                               JUDGMENT

Second respondent herein filed a complaint before the Maintenance

Tribunal and Sub Collector, Thalassery complaining that the petitioner

herein, by making false representations acquired the property belonging

to her and that, without maintaining the second respondent, petitioner is

attempting to effect sale of the property.

2. After hearing both sides and pursuant to a conciliation talk that

took place, the Tribunal by Ext.P3 order restrained the petitioner from

assigning the land having an extent of 14 cents except 5 cents.

Challenging that order, petitioner has preferred this appeal.

3. Pending the appeal, it seems that the parties resolved their

dispute. Second respondent has now filed an affidavit, dated 25.06.2021,

which is now brought on record indicating that the second respondent has

no objection in the petitioner assigning the entire extent. She has

affirmed in the affidavit that, she understood the requirement of the

petitioner and that, without the sale of the entire extent of the land,

petitioner will not be able to raise the requisite fund. In the light of the

above facts, which is reiterated by the learned counsel for the second

respondent, I am inclined to modify Ext.P3 by removing the restriction W.P(C).6297/2021

imposed on the petitioner, limiting his right of alienation confined to 5

cents. Accordingly, Ext.P3 stands modified and petitioner is permitted to

sell the entire extent of 14 cents, if he so desires.

Writ Petition is accordingly closed.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE

Sbna/ W.P(C).6297/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6297/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 03.08.2012 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.09.2015

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 21.1.2016