K.P.Chithra vs The Tahsildar, Kannur Taluk
2021 Latest Caselaw 18577 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 17TH BHADRA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 5796 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

           K.P.CHITHRA
           AGED 55 YEARS
           W/O.LATE PRABHAKARAN KALAMULLA VALAPPIL, RESIDING
           AT "RANJANA", CHOVVA P.O., KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR
           DISTRICT.

           BY ADVS.
           JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY
           SRI.ANIL GEORGE



RESPONDENTS:

     1     THE TAHSILDAR, KANNUR TALUK
           KANNUR-670 001.

     2     THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA),
           RAILWAY KANNUR, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR-670 001.

     3     THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION),
           SOUTHERN RAILWAY KANNUR, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
           KOZHIKODE-673 001.

     4     THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KANNUR I VILLAGE,
           KANNUR-670 501.

     5     THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION),
           SOUTHERN RAILWAY KANNUR, NEAR RAILWAY STATION,
           KOZHIKODE-673 001.

          BY ADV SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED, SC, RAILWAYS




      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   08.09.2021,   THE    COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 5796 OF 2021                 2

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that an extent of 4.41

cents, remains in her ownership and possession

subsequent to the acquisition of the balance

property, which was originally in the name of her

husband. She says that she has, therefore, preferred

Ext.P5 application before the 1st respondent, seeking

permission to remit the basic tax for the remaining

property in her possession, but alleges that it has

not been yet considered; and consequently, prays

that said respondent be directed to do so within a

time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The learned Senior Government Pleader,

Shri.Aswin Sethumadhavan, however, submitted that

the afore submissions of the petitioner, as made by

her learned counsel - Shri.Joby Jacob Pulickekudy,

does not appear to be correct because the entire

property originally owned by the petitioner's

husband has been acquired for a public purpose. He

then submitted that, nevertheless if, after a

verification, it is found that there is any further

land in her possession, then Ext.P5 can certainly be

considered and appropriate orders issued thereon.

Taking note of the afore submissions, I direct

the 1st respondent - Tahsildar to take up Ext.P5

application of the petitioner and dispose of the

same, after affording an opportunity of being heard

to her and making necessary enquiries whether any

further land is still in her ownership and

possession after the acquisition had been completed;

thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon, as

expeditiously as is possible, but not later than one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/22.9

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5796/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF DOCUMENT NO.1271/1976 (RESURVEY 916, 917 AND 1011).

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2018 IN LAR NO.28/2002 AND LAR NO.227/2002 PASSED BY THE SUB COURT, THALASSERY.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF COMMISSION REPORT IN LAR NOS.28/2002 AND 227/2002 BEFORE THE SUB COURT, THALASSERY ALONG WITH SKETCH.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DATED 16.07.2019.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DATED 28.09.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.