Ashraf P.P vs The State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 21338 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 7TH KARTHIKA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 23639 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:

    1     ASHRAF P.P.,
          AGED 53 YEARS
          POYIL HOUSE, FAIR LAND COLONY, SULTHAN BATHERY,
          WAYANAD, PIN-673 592.

    2     NASEERA,
          W/O.ASHRAF.P.P., POYIL HOUSE, FAIR LAND COLONY, SULTHAN
          BATHERY, WAYANAD, PIN-673 592.

          BY ADV RAFFEEKH.K



RESPONDENTS:

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

    2     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          WAYANAD, KALPETTA NORTH POST, WAYANAD, PIN-673 122.

    3     THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (LR),
          COLLECTORATE, KALPETTA NORTH POST, WAYANAD, PIN-673
          122.

    4     THE TAHSILDAR,
          TALUK OFFICE, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-
          673 592.

    5     THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
          SULTHAN VATHERY VILLAGE OFFICE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-
          673 592.



OTHER PRESENT:

          SR GP SMT AMMINIKKUTTY
 WP(C) NO. 23639 OF 2021
                                      2




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   29.10.2021,   THE   COURT   ON       THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 23639 OF 2021
                                 3

                          JUDGMENT

The petitioners seek that the 2nd respondent be directed

to assign them land in the Sulthan Bathery Village, as per the

provisions of the Assignment of Land in Municipal and

Corporation Area Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Rules' for short) as also Ext.P3 Government Order.

2. The petitioners allege that even though their

applications for the afore purpose have been pending for the

last several years, no action has been taken by the competent

Authority on it until now; and therefore, pray that they be

directed to do so, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

3. The learned Senior Government Pleader, Shri.Jaffar

Khan, submitted that if the petitioners only require their

applications to be considered in terms of the Rules, there is no

legal impediment for the competent Authority in doing so. He,

however, explained that petitioners may not be able to seek

the benefit of Ext.P3 Government Order because it was one

issued invoking the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules, but that

the same was under challenge before this Court, which finally

led to the judgment in C.C.Anil Kumar v. State of Kerala WP(C) NO. 23639 OF 2021

and Others [W.P(C)No.33638 of 2019]. He submitted that,

therefore, even though some others were given the benefit of

Ext.P3, the petitioners cannot seek the same, after this Court

had delivered affirmative declarations in the afore judgment.

4. I do not propose to go into the merits of the

contentions of the learned Senior Government Pleader as

afore, because, as of now, the petitioners are only seeking that

their applications be considered in terms of law. Whether

Ext.P3 would be applicable to them or if they are eligible to the

beneficial prescriptions thereunder, are matters which will have

to be decided by the competent Authority when the petitioners

are afforded an opportunity of being heard.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the 2nd

respondent - District Collector, to consider the applications of

the petitioners, after affording them an opportunity of being

heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment .

Needless to say, I have not considered the merits of the

contentions of the rival parties on their merits and all of them WP(C) NO. 23639 OF 2021

are left open - including as to whether Ext.P3 would be

applicable to the petitioners - to be decided by the 2 nd

respondent appropriately, while the afore exercise is

completed.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ANB WP(C) NO. 23639 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23639/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 28.01.2009.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF GO(MS) NO.322/2010/REV DATED 04.08.2010.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.86/2019/REVENUE DATED 01.03.2019.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE FORM 2 NOTICE DATED 15.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.