Rasiya vs The Special Tahsildar (Land ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 241 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                   PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 21ST POUSHA, 1943
                          WP(C) NO. 735 OF 2022
PETITIONER:

             RASIYA
             AGED 56 YEARS
             D/O.MOIDHEENKUTTY, KUNNATHEDATH HOUSE, PONMUNDAM
             POST, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676
             106.

             BY ADVS.
             BINU V V VEETTIL VALAPPIL
             S.K.PREMJITH MENON



RESPONDENTS:

      1      THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND REFORMS)
             OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR), THE LAND
             TRIBUNAL, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 106.

      2      THE VILLAGE OFFICER
             KALPAKANCHERY VILLAGE OFFICE, KALPAKANCHERY, TIRUR
             TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 676 551.


OTHER PRESENT:

            SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY SR.G.P.




       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON    11.01.2022,   THE    COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 735 OF 2022              2

                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court

asserting that a suo motu proceedings, bearing

S.M.No.2212 of 2021, has been initiated against her

by the 1st respondent - Special Tahsildar (Land

Reforms); and seeks that the same be directed to be

disposed of within a time frame to be fixed by this

Court.

2. In response, the learned Senior Government

Pleader, Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that the afore

mentioned suo motu proceedings was initiated against

the petitioner only in December, 2021 and therefore,

that this writ petition is premature.

3. When I hear the learned Senior Government

Pleader as afore, it is without doubt that this Court

has been ordering suo motu proceedings to be disposed

of within a time frame. That said, though this Court

normally fixes eighteen months time for the Competent

Authority to complete proceedings, I am of the view

that in this case it will be justified to expand it

to twenty four months, since the application of the

petitioner has been made only very recently.

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered,

directing the 1st respondent to complete proceedings

in S.M.No.2212 of 2021 after following due procedure

and after affording necessary opportunity of being

heard to the petitioner - as also any other

interested person - as expeditiously as is possible,

but not later than twenty four months from the date

of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/11.1

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 735/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 29.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.