Gopi P.K vs The Dist. Collector, Idukki And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 19442 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 25TH BHADRA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 30595 OF 2009
PETITIONER:

            GOPI P.K
            AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.LATE KUMARAN,, PUTHENPURAYIL
            HOUSE, KONNATHADY VILLAGE,, IDUKKI.
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
            SRI.A.V.JOJO

RESPONDENTS:

    1    THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI
    2    THE TAHSILDAR
         UDUMBANCHOLA TALUK OFFICE,, UDUMBANCHOLA.
    3    THE VILLAGE OFFICER
         KONNATHADY VILLAGE OFFICE.
    4    THE SECRETARY
         KONNATHADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
 ADDL.R5 THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
         DEVIKULAM
 ADDL.R6 THE RANGE OFFICER
         ADIMALI.
            (ADDL.R5 & R6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER, DATED
            16.11.2011 IN IA.17862/2011)
            BY ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER

OTHER PRESENT:

            SRI. SANGEETH. C.U SPL.GP


     THIS     WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)     HAVING    COME    UP    FOR
ADMISSION     ON   16.09.2021,    THE     COURT   ON   THE    SAME   DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING
 W.P.(C).No.30595/2009

                                 2




                 P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                   -------------------------------
                 W.P.(C).No.30595 of 2009
           ----------------------------------------------
       Dated this the 16th day of September, 2021


                         JUDGMENT

According to the petitioner, he is a landless

agriculturist. He stated in the writ petition that for about

30 years, he had been cultivating crops in the revenue

land having an extent of 1 ½ Acres at Perinchankutty in

Konnathady Village, with the consent, knowledge and

permission from the respondents. According to the

petitioner, he is having ration card, electoral card, etc. It

is also the case of the petitioner that he constructed a

house in the said property and regularly paying building

tax in the 4th respondent Panchayat. According to the

petitioner, even though he submitted an application for

assigning the above property, which was in his

possession, the authorities are not considering the same.

In such circumstances, this writ petition is filed. W.P.(C).No.30595/2009

2. Today, when the matter came up for

consideration, the counsel for the petitioner submitted

that he will be satisfied if a direction is issued to the 2 nd

respondent to consider Ext.P9 application submitted by

him as per the Land Assignment Rules.

3. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the

Government Pleader.

4. After hearing both sides, I think there can be a

direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P9 and

pass appropriate orders in it in accordance to law, after

giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. I make

it clear that I have not considered the matter on merit

and the 2nd respondent is free to pass appropriate orders

in accordance to law.

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed with

following directions:

1. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider

Ext.P9 application in accordance to law, as

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, W.P.(C).No.30595/2009

within three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2. Before passing final orders, the 2 nd

respondent will give an opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner.

sd/-

                                       P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV                                            JUDGE