Rajeena Shareef vs Land Tribunal(Land Reforms)
2021 Latest Caselaw 23187 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
  WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 26394 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          RAJEENA SHAREEF, W/O.SHAREEF, PUTHUVEETTIL HOUSE,
          VATTEKKAD, ORUMANAYUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

          BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS



RESPONDENTS:

    1     LAND TRIBUNAL(LAND REFORMS),
          CIVIL STATION, TIRUR,
          TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 101.

    2     SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND REFORMS),
          LAND TRIBUNAL, CIVIL STATION, TIRUR,
          TIRUR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 679 101.

          BY ADV.SMT.SURYA BINOY- SR. G.P


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 26394 OF 2021
                                  -2-

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

asserting that a suo motu proceedings, bearing

S.M.No.281 of 2021, has been initiated against her

by the 2nd respondent - Special Tahsildar (Land

Reforms); and seeks that the same be directed to

be disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by

this Court.

2. In response, the learned Senior Government

Pleader, Smt.Surya Binoy, submitted that the afore

mentioned suo motu proceedings was initiated

against the petitioner only recently and

therefore, that this writ petition is premature.

3. Even though I find the afore submissions of

the learned Senior Government Pleader to be valid,

I am also aware that, as a rule, this Court

directs the competent Authority to dispose of such

proceedings within a period of eighteen months. I, WP(C) NO. 26394 OF 2021

therefore, do not see why the petitioner should

not be given the said benefit.

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered,

directing the 2nd respondent to complete

proceedings in S.M.No.281 of 2021, after following

due procedure and after affording necessary

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner - as

also any other interested person - as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than

eighteen months from the date of receipt of a

certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 26394 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26394/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 12/02/2021 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT (SM NO.281/21).

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE