Rughmini vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 23475 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
  THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 4TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 26559 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          RUGHMINI, AGED 85 YEARS,
          W/O RAMANKUTTY, PUNNAKKADU ERATTAKKULAM KAVASSERI-I,
          PALAKKAD-678682.

          BY ADVS.
          T.T.MUHAMOOD
          V.E.ABDUL GAFOOR
          A.MOHAMMED SAVAD
          NAZEER HUZAIN.H
          T.R.VISHNU



RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA,
          REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
          REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695001.

    2     SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
          LAND REFORMS, PATTAMBI, MINI CIVIL STATION,
          OTTAPALAM-679104.

    3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VANDAZHI-II,
          VANDAZHI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
          AALTHUR BLOCK PANCHAYATH,
          PALAKKAD-627708.

          BY ADV.SMT.K.AMMINIKKUTTY, SR.GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 26559 OF 2021
                                     -2-

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to be a senior

citizen of over 85 years in age, has approached this

Court alleging that, even though a suo motu

proceedings has been initiated against her by the 2nd

respondent - Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms) and

numbered as S.M.No.361 of 2020, further action thereon

has not been completed until now. The petitioner,

therefore, prays the 2nd respondent be directed to do

so and issue appropriate final orders thereon, within

a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. In response, the learned Senior Government

Pleader - Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that, if the

suo motu proceedings are still pending against the

petitioner, the same can be disposed of by the 2nd

respondent, within a period of six months, taking note

of the fact that she is a senior citizen. She,

therefore, prayed that this writ petition be ordered

only on such terms.

3. When I consider the afore submissions, it is WP(C) NO. 26559 OF 2021

ineluctable that if S.M.No.361 of 2020 is still

pending against the petitioner, then it will require

to be disposed of by the 2nd respondent within a period

of six months, because this is the time frame that has

been constantly followed by this Court in the case of

senior citizens.

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered,

directing the 2nd respondent to complete proceedings in

S.M.No.361 of 2020, after following due procedure and

after affording necessary opportunity of being heard

to the petitioner - as also to any other

interested/affected persons - thus, culminating in an

apposite order thereon, as expeditiously as is

possible, but not later than six months from the date

of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 26559 OF 2021

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER LETTER NO.10/2020 DATED 01.02.2020.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 04.03.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT SHOWING THE REGISTRATION OF SM PROCEEDINGS.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

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