Safia, W/O.Yunoos Kunju v. The Tahsildar,Udumpanchola Taluk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JULY 2015/10TH ASHADHA, 1937 WP(C).No.13091 of 2010 (J) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER:
------------------ SAFIA,W/O.YOONUS KUNJU,AGED 50 YEARS, BLOCK NO.396, KALLARPATTOM COLONY, KAMBUMMEDU,PARATHODU,UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI.
BY ADV.SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENT'S:
------------------------- 1.
THE TAHSILDAR,UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
2.
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI.
3.
THE VILLAGE OFFICER,PARATHODU VILLAGE, UDUMPANCHOLA TALUK,IDUKKI DISTRICT.
4.
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM,IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
pk
WP(C).No.13091 of 2010 (J) --------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1:THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 1.12.2008.
EXT.P2:THE TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION HAVING NO.6972/05 DATED 21.12.2005.
EXT.P3:THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN W.P(C) 12300/2009 DATED 13.7.2009. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE pk
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 13091 of 2010 (J) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 1st day of July, 2015
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was before this Court seeking payment of land tax with respect to 1.90 Acres of land in Survey No. 397 of Parathodu Village, Udumpanchola Thaluk, Idukki. 2.
The said property is said to have been assigned to the petitioner's mother. However, the patta issued to the petitioner's mother was cancelled by the 4th respondent. The petitioner had also filed Ext.P2 revision petition. By Ext.P3 judgment the Revenue Divisional Officer was directed to forward the same to the District Collector within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of that judgment.
W.P.(C) No. 13091/2010 -23.
The issue would be covered by the orders passed by the District Collector and there is no reason why the present writ petition should be kept pending. If adverse orders were passed by the District Collector, the petitioner is left to the remedies to challenge the same. Writ Petition would stand closed.
Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj