Kerala High Court
K.R.Prasannakumar vs The Tahsildar on 3 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 12TH BHADRA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 17934 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
1 K.R.PRASANNAKUMAR, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O.K.RAVEENDRAN
VAIDYAR, KESAVA VILASOM. CHERTHALA NORTH VILLAGE, C.M.C-
29, CHERTHALA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524.
2 JEEJA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.K.R.PRASANNAKUMAR, KESAVA
VILASOM, CHERTHALA, NORTH VILLAGE, C.M.C-29, CHERTHALA
P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524.
3 MIDHUN, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.LATE GEETHA, KESAVA VILASOM
(GEETHAM), CHERTHALA, NORTH VILLAGE, C.M.C-29, CHERTHALA
P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524.
4 P.G.THAMPI, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.GOPALA PANICKER, KESAVA
VILASOM (GEETHAM), CHERTHALA, NORTH VILLAGE, C.M.C-29,
CHERTHALA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524.
5 K.R.JAYAPAL, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.K.RAVEENDRAN VAIDYAR,
KESAVA VILASOM, CHERTHALA, NORTH VILLAGE, C.M.C-29,
CHERTHALA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524,
REPRESENTED BY HIS BROTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,
THE 1ST PETITIONER K.R.PRASANNAKUMAR, S/O.K.RAVEENDRAN
VAIDYAR, KESAVA VILASOM, CHERTHALA, NORTH VILLAGE, C.M.C-
29, CHERTHALA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524.
6 K.R.PRADEEPKUMAR, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.K.RAVEENDRAN
VAIDYAR, KESAVA VILASOM, CHERTHALA, NORTH VILLAGE, C.M.C-
29, CHERTHALA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524,
REPRESENTED BY HIS BROTHER AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
THE 1ST PETITIONER K.R.PRASANNAKUMAR, S/O.K.RAVEENDRAN
VAIDYAR, KESAVA VILASOM, CHERTHALA, NORTH VILLAGE, C.M.C-
29, CHERTHALA P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688524.
BY ADV K.RAMANADHAN
WPC 17934/21
2
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA-688524.
2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE RDO, ALAPPUZHA-688001.
3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
SRI ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN- SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 03.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 17934/21
3
JUDGMENT
The petitioners impugn Ext.P11 order issued
by the 2nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer
(RDO) dismissing their appeal, namely Ext.P10, on
the ground that it has been preferred beyond the
period of limitation.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners -
Sri.K.Ramanadhan, submits that Ext.P11 is
egregiously improper for various reasons,
including that the period in question falls
within the umbra of extensions granted by the
Honourable Supreme Court, on account of the
Covid-19 pandemic disruptions; and that in any
event of the matter, the period of 90 days would
have arisen only from 15.03.2021, but that even
this is not relevant because the same has again
been extended under orders of the Honourable
Supreme Court and this Court. He thus prays that
WPC 17934/21
Ext.P11 be set aside and the RDO be directed to
reconsider Ext.P10 within a time frame to be
fixed by this Court.
3. Pertinently, the learned Senior
Government Pleader - Sri.Ashwin Sethumadhavan,
very fairly conceded that, on account of the
Covid-19 pandemic restrictions, Ext.P10 appeal
ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of
limitation, particularly because the period in
question has already been excluded under orders
of this Court and the Honorable Supreme Court.
He, therefore, submitted that the 2nd respondent
will take up Ext.P10 statutory appeal and dispose
it of, after affording necessary opportunity to
the petitioners, without any avoidable delay.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ
petition, setting aside Ext.P11; with a
consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to
take up Ext.P10 appeal of the petitioners and
dispose it of, after affording them an
WPC 17934/21
opportunity of being heard - either physically or
through video-conferencing - and after following
due procedure, thus culminating in an appropriate
order thereon, as expeditiously as is possible,
but not later than four months from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Needless to say, on account of my directions
above, no further orders are required to be
issued by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P12 and same
will be treated as closed.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
WPC 17934/21
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17934/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED
BY THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR ASSIGNMENT OF
PROPERTY OF 6 CENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE
1ST PETITIONER DATED 21.10.2016.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED
BY THE 2ND PETITIONER FOR ASSIGNMENT OF
PROPERTY OF 6 CENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE
2ND PETITIONER DATED 21.10.2019.
Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FILED BY
LATE GEETHA FOR ASSIGNMENT OF PROPERTY
OF 6 CENTS IN FAVOUR OF HER DATED
21.10.2016.
Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED
BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER 1ST
PETITIONER FOR ASSIGNMENT OF PROPERTY
OF 6 CENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH
PETITIONER DATED 21.10.2018.
Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED
BY THE 5TH PETITIONER FOR ASSIGNMENT OF
PROPERTY OF 6 CENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE
5TH PETITIONER DATED 21.10.2016.
Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION FILED
BY THE PETITIONERS FOR EFFECTING
MUTATION OF PROPERTY IN THEIR NAMES
DATED 25.10.2016.
Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WP(C)4096/2017 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT OF KERALA DATED 27.09.2018.
Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 05.06.2020 REJECTING
LAND ASSIGNMENT WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON
18.06.2020 BY THE 1ST PETITIONER.
WPC 17934/21
Exhibit P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN COC
725/2020 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF
KERALA DATED 14.10.2020.
Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY
THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 20.04.2021.
Exhibit P11 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER
NO.B3697/2021 DATED 25.05.2021 ISSUED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P12 THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED
BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO CONDONE THE
DELAY IF ANY.
