Manningachalil Hassankutty vs The District Collector
2021 Latest Caselaw 20666 Ker

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
         TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 19158 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

              MANNINGACHALIL HASSANKUTTY, AGED 72 YEARS
              S/O BEERANKUTTY HAJI, MANNINGACHALIL HOUSE,
              PULPATTA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

              BY ADV K.RAKESH



RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
              CIVIL STATION, UP-HILL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
              PIN-676 505.

     2        THE TAHASILDAR (LR), TALUK OFFICE, ERNAD TALUK,
              MANJERI P.O., MANJERI, IN-676 121.

     3        THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PULPATTA VILLAGE, PULPATTA P.O.,
              MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 126.

     4        MUHAMMED M.C., S/O. BEERANKUTTY HAJI, ODENGAL HOUSE,
              OLAMATHIL, PULPATTA P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
              PIN-676 126.

              SMT. SURYA BINOY- SR. G.P


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 19158/21
                                           2

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner impugns Ext.P3 on various

grounds, including that he was not heard when it

was issued and that it contains various

observations and holdings which are beyond the

jurisdiction of the Tahsildar (LR) - the 2nd

respondent herein.

2. The learned Senior Government Pleader -

Smt.Surya Binoy, submitted that Ext.P3 has been

issued only to bring an amicable settlement

between the rival parties and that it is up to

them to accept or reject the same. She,

therefore, prayed that this Writ Petition be

dismissed.

3. When I hear the learned Senior Government

Pleader as afore, it is clear that Ext.P3 has

been issued by the Tahsildar not in his capacity

as the competent Appellate Authority under the

Right to Information Act, but as if he acting as

a Settlement Officer. This cannot be done. WPC 19158/21

4. I am, therefore, of the firm view that

Ext.P3 cannot find favour in law and that the

Tahsildar must reconsider Ext.P2 appeal in terms

of law, after affording necessary opportunity to

both sides.

5. I am aware that this Court has not issued

notice to the 4th respondent, but am of the

opinion that it will not be necessary in view of

the directions I propose hereunder and since it

will not cause any prejudice to him.

Resultantly, this Writ Petition is allowed

and Ext.P3 set aside; with a consequential

direction to the 2nd respondent - Tahsildar to

reconsider Ext.P2 appeal of the petitioner and to

dispose of the same, after affording him, as also

the 4th respondent, an opportunity of being heard;

thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon

as expeditiously as is possible.

Sd/-

RR                                            DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                      JUDGE
 WPC 19158/21


               APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19158/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1        TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE

PETITIONER DATED, 1.4.2021 ISSUED FROM THE PULPATTA VILLAGE OFFICE.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22.3.2021.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.4.2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 27.7.2021 ISSUED BY THE INFORMATION OFFICER ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.