Kerala High Court
Pathumol vs The Special Tahsildar (Land ... on 22 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 1ST CHAITHRA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 9529 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:
1 PATHUMOL, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O KUNHIMUHAMMED,
KAYALMADATHIL PUTHANPEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE,
KATTILANGADI, ATHAVANAD, TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 301.
2 SHOUKHATHALI K.P, AGED 42 YEARS,
S/O.KUNHIMUHAMMED, KAYALMADATHIL PUTHANPEEDIYEKKAL
HOUSE, KATTILANGADI, ATHAVANAD, TIRUR TALUK,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 301.
3 UMMER SHEREEF, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O KUNHIMUHAMMED,
KAYALMADATHIL PUTHANPEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, KATTILANGADI,
ATHAVANAD, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,
PIN-676 301.
BY ADVS.BINU V. V.
S.K.PREMJITH MENON
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND REFORMS),
OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LR),
THE LAND TRIBUNAL, TIRUR,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 101.
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
ATHAVANAD VILLAGE OFFICE, NAJATH MASJID ROAD,
ATHAVANAD, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 571.
SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY, SR.GP.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 9529 OF 2022
-2-
JUDGMENT
Among the petitioners, the first petitioner is
stated to be a senior citizen of over 61 years in age.
The petitioners have approached this Court alleging
that, even though a suo motu proceedings has been
initiated against them by the 1st respondent - Special
Tahsildar (Land Reforms) and numbered as
S.M.No.130/2022, further action thereon has not been
completed until now. They, therefore, pray that the 1st
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
petitioners, the same can be disposed of by the 1 st
respondent, within a period of eight months, taking
note of the fact that the 1st petitioner is a senior
citizen. She, therefore, prayed that this writ
petition be ordered only on such terms.
WP(C) NO. 9529 OF 2022
3. When I consider the afore submissions, it is
ineluctable that if S.M.No.130/2022 is still pending
against the petitioners, then it will require to be
disposed of by the 1st respondent within a period of
eight months.
4. I am fixing the afore time frame, even
though, in similar matters, it has been fixed as six
months, because the suo motu proceedings in this case
has commenced only recently.
Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered,
directing the 1st respondent to complete proceedings in
S.M.No.130/2022, after following due procedure and
after affording necessary opportunity of being heard
to the petitioners - as also to any other
interested/affected persons - thus, culminating in an
apposite order thereon, as expeditiously as is
possible, but not later than eight months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Though there is no specific averment regarding
the involvement of any Devaswom Board in the S.M.
Proceedings, it is made clear that if the competent
WP(C) NO. 9529 OF 2022
Authority is to find so, then the said entity will
also be given an opportunity of being heard while the
afore directed exercise is completed.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
akv
WP(C) NO. 9529 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9529/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SUO MOTO REPORT OF THE
2ND RESPONDENT, DATED 18.1.2022
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
