Hamsa vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 13203 Ker

WP(C) NO. 12624 OF 2021         1

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
    THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2021 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 12624 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          HAMSA
          AGED 60 YEARS
          S/O MOHAMMED, CHAKKALAKKUNNAN PANIKKER KALATHIL
          HOUSE, KODAKKAD P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK,
          PALAKKAD DISTRICT
          BY ADV P.JAYARAM



RESPONDENTS:

1         THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          PALAKKAD-678 001.

2         THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR(LAND REFORMS)
          COLLECTORATE, PALAKKAD - 678 001.


3         THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THACHANATTUKARA-I
          VILLAGE OFFICE, P.O.THACHANATTUKARA-678 583.


4         STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
          DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.



          SMT VIDHYA AC, GOVERNMENT PLEADER



THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.06.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 12624 OF 2021                    2

                                      JUDGMENT

The above-captioned Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders in S.M. No.171/2016 proceedings in a time bound manner.

2. The petitioner states that he is in possession of 0.0648 hectors of

land comprised in Sy.No.47/4 of Thachanattukara-I Village, Mannarkkad

Taluk in Palakkad District. He contends that he had applied for issuance of

purchase certificate with the 3rd respondent and the case was taken on file

by the 2nd respondent and the same is pending as S.M.No.171/2016 as is

evident from Exts.P1 and P2. The petitioner contends that he is sick and

ailing and refers to Ext.P5 medical report to substantiate the contention. The

grievance of the petitioner concerns the long delay in conclusion of the

proceedings and his solitary prayer is for directions to the 2nd respondent to

expedite the same.

3. It appears that a suo moto proceeding has been initiated by the

Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Palakkad 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.

4. I have heard Sri. P. Jayaram, the learned counsel for the

petitioner and Smt. Vidhya, the learned Government Pleader.

5. Sri. P. Jayaram, 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. He would also

refer to the medical report and also the fact that the proceedings are pending

since 2016 to canvass his prayer.

6. The learned Government Pleader submits that the directions

issued by this Court in Narayanan Namboodiri (supra) can be followed.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced.

8. 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)

9. 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. I am certain that the

respondent shall take note of the fact that the proceedings are pending since

2016 and also the medical conditions of the petitioner while taking all

necessary steps to expedite the proceedings.

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Deputy

Collector (Land Reforms), Palakkad to dispose of S.M.No.171/2016, following

the directions issued by this Court in Narayanan Namboodiri (supra) and

in accordance with law.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE NS

APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 19.03.2016 TO THE PETITIONER FROM DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR), PALAKKAD INFORMING THE REGISTRATION OF SM.NO.171/2016

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 02.11.2020 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LAND REFORMS), PALAKKAD INFORMING THE INABILITY TO CONSIDER AND PASS ORDERS IN SM.NO.171/2016 EXPEDITIOUSLY.

EXHIBIT P3:      TRUE   COPY    OF  THE   LETTER/REQUEST   DATED
                 07.01.2021    SUBMITTED   BY   THE   PETITIONER
                 BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD
                 SEEKING     AN    EXPEDITIOUS    DISPOSAL    OF
                 SM.NO.171/2016      PENDING    BEFORE    DEPUTY
                 COLLECTOR (LR) ON THE GROUND OF PETITONER'S
                 SERIOUS AILMENT.

EXHIBIT P4:      TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE DATED
                 14.01.2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM

REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RADIO DIAGNOSIS OF THE PETITIONER DATED 27.04.2019 ISSUED FROM REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS:

NIL