Kerala High Court
Lakshmanan vs State on 22 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 5977 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
LAKSHMANAN
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. KOTHIRI KUNHIKANNAN,
RESIDING AT KARIVALLUR P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
M.PROMODH KUMAR
SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE,
REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR'S OFFICE,
KANNUR.
2 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
VILLAGE OFFICE, PERINTHATTA P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT.
SMT.SHEEJA.C.S., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 22.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 5977 OF 2020
-2-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN,J.
===============================
W.P.(C) No.5977 of 2020
===============================
Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2021
JUDGMENT
Above writ petition is filed with following
prayers:-
"a) Call for the records relating to Ext.P5
order and set aside the same;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction
directing the 2nd respondent to consider
petitioner's claim afresh on the basis of
Ext.P4 statement and also documents
produced along with Ext.P4 statement."
2. Ext.P5 is an order passed by the 2nd
respondent. In Ext.P5 order, the Tahsildar stated
that the petitioner has not produced any
documents to prove his contentions in Ext.P4. In
the order it is also stated that, there is a
dispute between the legal heirs of the deceased
WP(C) NO. 5977 OF 2020
Padachi Chiyeeyi.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that, the petitioner produced documents
before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent
has not considered the same. The counsel take me
through Ext.P4 statement, in which it is stated
that the petitioner has produced copy of the
Adangal extract relating to the Re Sruvey No.15
and the order of the Taluk Land Board Taliparamba
dated 26.06.1976. It is also stated that the
assignment plan and copy of number-14 register is
also produced.
5. The learned Government Pleader after
getting instruction submitted that, those
documents are not available in the file.
6. In the light of the above facts, I think
this writ petition can be disposed of, directing
the 2nd respondent to reconsider the matter
WP(C) NO. 5977 OF 2020
afresh. The petitioner can be directed to produce
all the documents available with him before the
2nd respondent, so that the 2nd respondent can
decide the matter afresh on merit, after hearing
the petitioner and all other affected parties. I
make it clear that I have not considered the
matter on merit.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed in
the following manner:-
1) Ext.P5 order is set aside.
2) The petitioner is free to produce the
documents he wants to rely before the 2nd
respondent within one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment. The
petitioner is free to file an additional
statement also, if necessary.
3) Once the document and statement if any,
is received by the 2nd respondent, the 2nd
respondent will consider the same, after hearing
the petitioner and all other affected parties, as
WP(C) NO. 5977 OF 2020
expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within
three months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this judgment.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
hmh
WP(C) NO. 5977 OF 2020
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5977/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26-06-
1976 OF TALUK LAND BOARD DATED 26-06-
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX DATED 19-03-
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX DATED 10-02-
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONEER BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, DATED 27-09-2018
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16-11-2018
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS NIL
