Kerala High Court
Sahana Industries Pvt Ltd vs State Of Kerala on 28 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Tuesday, the 28th day of June 2022 / 7th Ashadha, 1944
IA.NO.2/2022 IN WP(C) NO. 6080 OF 2022(H)
APPLICANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WP(C):
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY (REVENUE DEPARTMENT),
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.
2. TAHASILDAR, LAND RECORDS, TALUK OFFICE, PALA, KOTTAYAM- 686 575.
3. VILLAGE OFFICER RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, RAMAPURAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT- 686
576.
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WP(C):
SAHANA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD 11 FLOOR, VALLAMATTOM ESTATE, MARADY,
MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN-686 673, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, M.P SHIJU, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O PEETHAMBARAN, MUTHEMADATHIL
HOUSE, OORAMANA P.O.MUVATTUPUZHA- 686 663
Application praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed therewith the High Court be pleased to extend the time for
a period of 3 months from 01-05-2022 for complying with the direction of
this Honourable Court in WP(C) No.6080/2022, in the interest of justice.
This Application coming on for orders upon perusing the application
and the affidavit filed in support thereof, and this court's judgmdment
dated 18-03-2022 and upon hearing the arguments of SENIOR GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for the petitioners in IA/ respondents in WP(C) and SRI.SUNIL
JACOB, Advocates for the respondent in IA/ petitioner in WP(C), the court
passed the following:
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
------------------------
I.A.No.2/2022
in
W.P.(C) No.6080/2022
--------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of June, 2022
O R D E R
This application for extension of time has
been preferred by the Government and its
functionaries seeking that the time frame in
the judgment be extended by a period of three
months from 01.05.2022.
2. Though, Sri.Sunil Jacob - learned
counsel for the writ petitioner, does not
oppose the time sought for, he pointed out that
the reasons cited in the affidavit in support
of this I.A. for seeking such a plea is that
115 persons who are in occupation of the land
in question must be heard. He argued that this
is not merely improper, but imprudent.
3. I, therefore, asked Sri.Jafar Khan -
I.A.No.2/2022 in W.P.(C) No.6080/2022
learned Senior Government Pleader, on this
issue and he submitted that it is only to help
the petitioner to wade of any further
controversy in future that the Authority has
decided to hear the 115 people, who are
claiming on the basis of certain prior title
deeds, including a Partition Deed of the year
1960. However, after reflecting upon this issue
for sometime, Sri.Jafar Khan submitted that the
Authorities are willing to abide by the
directions of this Court without doing so,
provided the petitioner agrees to face
consequences in future.
4. Sri.Sunil Jacob - learned counsel
submitted that his client's limited plea, as
has been recorded by this Court in the judgment
in question, is only for the issuance of a
Record of Rights Certificate and therefore,
that if any legal action or litigation is
launched by any other person, his client will
I.A.No.2/2022 in W.P.(C) No.6080/2022
take full responsibility for the same.
Recording the afore submissions of the writ
petitioner, I allow this I.A, however, making
it clear that no further extension will be
granted and that the Authorities must comply
with the directions in the judgment on or
before 01.08.2022.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN,
JUDGE
SAS
28-06-2022 /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar
