Mohandas vs The District Collector
2022 Latest Caselaw 1646 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 26TH MAGHA, 1943
                        WP(C) NO. 4915 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

          MOHANDAS, AGED 61 YEARS, S/O. SATHYABHAMA AMMA,
          VELUTHAKKAL HOUSE, CHERUKANNAMBRA, P.O. PARUVASSERY,
          ALTHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT 678 686.

          BY ADV P.JAYARAM



RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
          PALAKKAD 678 001.

    2     THE LAND TRIBUNAL/ SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
          (LAND REFORMS), OTTAPALAM, MINI CIVIL STATION,
          P.O. KANNIYAMPURAM, OTTAPALAM 691 104.

    3     THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKANCHERI- I
          VILLAGE OFFICE, P.O. VADAKKANCHERI - 678 683.

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

          SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.G.P.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 4915 OF 2022
                                     2


                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to be a senior citizen of

over 61 years in age, has approached this Court alleging that,

even though a suo motu proceedings has been initiated

against him by the second respondent - Special Tahsildar

(Land Reforms) and numbered as S.M.No.1635 of 2019,

further action thereon has not been completed until now. The

petitioner, therefore, prays the second respondent be

directed to do so and issue appropriate final orders thereon,

within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. In response, the learned Senior Government Pleader

Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that, if the suo motu

proceedings are still pending against the petitioner, the same

can be disposed of by the second respondent, within a period

of six months, taking note of the fact that he is a senior

citizen. She, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be

ordered only on such terms.

3. When I consider the afore submissions, it is

ineluctable that if S.M.No.1635 of 2019 is still pending

against the petitioner, then it will require to be disposed of by

the second respondent within a period of six months, because WP(C) NO. 4915 OF 2022

this is the time frame that has been constantly followed by

this Court in the case of senior citizens.

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered, directing the

second respondent to complete proceedings in S.M.No.1635

of 2019, after following due procedure and after affording

necessary opportunity of being heard to the petitioner - as

also to any other interested/affected persons - thus,

culminating in an apposite order thereon, as expeditiously as

is possible, but not later than six months from the date of

receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 4915 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4915/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 04.09.2019 IN SM 1635/2019 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND REFORMS), OTTAPALAM.