Abdul Rasheed v. The District Collector

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/3RD CHAITHRA, 1937 WP(C).No. 9275 of 2015 (H) --------------------------- PETITIONER :

------------------- ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 76 YEARS, S/O. EASU KUNJU, SALIM MANZIL, KOYIKKA VILA, NAVAYIKULAM VILLAGE, VARKALA.

BY ADV. SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI RESPONDENTS :

-----------------------

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005.

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 005.

3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, VARKALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 141.

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, NAVAYIKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 603.

5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 605.

R1 TO R5 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

bp

WP(C).No. 9275 of 2015 (H) --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------------------- P1 :

TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 64/1970 DT. 14.1.70. P2 :

TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 223/77 DT. 27.1.97. P3 :

TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 358/89 DT. 08/2/89. P4 :

TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. XXII-01/15 DT. 19.1.15 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

P5 :

TRUE COPY OF THE STATUTORY APPEAL IN THE FORM OF THE AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 09.2.15.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL.

--------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE bp

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C) No. 9275 of 2015 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated, this the 24th day of March, 2015

JUDGMENT

Being aggrieved of Ext. P4 order passed by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner has preferred Ext. P5 statutory appeal before the 2nd respondent. The only prayer now pressed before this Court is to cause Ext.P5 to be considered by the second respondent within a reasonable time.

2. Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

3. Considering the limited extent of relief sought for, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the merits of the case. The writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P5, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Implementation of Ext. P4 shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the second respondent on Ext. P5.

Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps. Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd