Sajeela vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 15404 Ker

WP(C) NO. 13658 OF 2021         1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
   THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1943
                    WP(C) NO. 13658 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

    1      SAJEELA
           AGED 50 YEARS
           W/O. NOUSHAD, VALIYAPARAMBIL VEEDU,
           PATHANAMTHITTA CHERRY AND VILLAGE,
           PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT - 689 645.
    2      SOUFEEDA
           AGED 47 YEARS
           W/O. ABDUL SALIM, KANJIRAMVILAPADINJATTATHIL,
           THRIPPILIAZHIKAM MURI, KARIPRA VILLAGE,
           KOTTARAKKARA TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 509.

           BY ADVS.
           R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
           M.KIRANLAL
           MANU RAMACHANDRAN
           T.S.SARATH
           SAMEER M NAIR



RESPONDENTS:

    1      STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
           REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

    2      THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
           COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION ROAD, KAANKATHU MUKKU,
           KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 013.

    3      THE TAHSILDAR
           TALUK OFFICE, KOLLAM TALUK,
           KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001.
 WP(C) NO. 13658 OF 2021           2

     4       THE VILLAGE OFFICER
             THRIKKOVILVATTOM VILLAGE,
             KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 005.



             SRI MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER




      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. 13658 OF 2021              3



                                 JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved by the delay in disposing Ext.P4 representation

submitted by the petitioners before the 2nd respondent, they have

approached this Court with this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. They have also sought a direction to the 4th

respondent to receive the land tax in respect of the property owned by them

and covered under Exts. P1 and P2 deeds.

2. According to the petitioners when the request made by them for

effecting mutation of the property purchased as per Exts.P1 and P2 was

refused on the ground that the same is the subject matter of an attachment

effected by the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kollam, in

C.C.No.359/1993 they approached the learned Magistrate and filed an

application under Section 84 and 85 to lift the attachment of the property.

The learned Magistrate, relying on the decision of this Court in Babu

v.State of Kerala (2011(3) KLT 383) dismissed the application and

relegated the petitioners to approach the Government. In terms of the said

directions, Ext.P4 representation was filed before the 2nd respondent. The

petitioners contend that no action has been taken till date. It is in the afore

circumstances that they have approached this Court seeking directions.

3. Sri.R.Rajesh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

submits that this Court had laid down in Babu (supra) that though due to

the passage of two years, the powers under sub-section (3) of S.85 of the

Code cannot any more be exercised, it would always be open to the

petitioners to request the Government to release the property, if it is not

already sold and the residue in case any portion is sold or the sale proceeds

to him. If the Government is satisfied that the plea of the petitioners is

correct and that the justice of the case requires that the property (or the

residue) or sale proceeds less costs incurred, as the case may be should be

restored to the petitioners, it is open to the Government to do accordingly.

4. Heard the learned Government Pleader who submitted that there

is no impediment in directing the 2nd respondent to act in tune with the

directions issued in Babu(supra).

5. I have considered the submissions.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances and the

submissions made across the bar there will be a direction to the 2nd

respondent to consider Ext.P4 in the light of the law laid down by this Court

in Babu(supra) in strict adherence to the provisions of law and take a

decision with notice to the petitioners and affected parties, if any,

expeditiously, in any event within a period of three months from the date of

production of a copy of this judgment.

The petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with this

judgment before the 2nd respondent to ensure compliance.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE IAP

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13658/2021

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1          THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
                    NO.1250/2009.

Exhibit P2          THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED
                    NO.1249/2009.

Exhibit P3          A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.M.P.
                    NO.2034/2012 DATED 03.08.2012.

Exhibit P4          A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
                    05.12.2012.

Exhibit P5          THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
                    PREFERRED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED
                    01.06.2021.

Exhibit P6          THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
                    PREFERRED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED
                    01.06.2021.

Exhibit P7          THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER
                    DATED 15.06.2021 OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.

Exhibit P8          THE TRUE COPY OF THE REJECTION ORDER
                    DATED 15.06.2021 OF THE 2ND PETITIONER.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

                    NIL