Raghavan v. The Taluk Land Board

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2015/1ST SRAVANA, 1937 WP(C).No. 10645 of 2014 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S):

-------------------------- RAGHAVAN, AGED 76 YEARS S/O.SANKARAN, PARATHUNDIYIL HOUSE, ELAYOOR MALAPPURAM DISTRTICT BY ADVS.SRI.BABU S. NAIR SMT.SMITHA BABU RESPONDENT(S):

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

1. THE TALUK LAND BOARD, ERNAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, PIN 676 121.

2. THE TAHSILDAR ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 676 121.

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER KAVANOOR VILLAGE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN 673 644. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.K. SHERIN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ds

WP(C).No. 10645 of 2014 (E) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1:

COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.1938/1 OF THE SRO, AREACODE DATED 22/4/2004.

EXHIBIT P2:

COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 16/11/2013 EXHIBIT P3:

COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27/11/2013 IN WPC NO. 29128/2013 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL --------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE ds

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 10645 of 2014 (E) ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2015

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved insofar as Ext.P2 application filed under Section 7E of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1964, (for brevity the 'Act') has not been considered.

2.

The consideration was delayed insofar as no Rules having been framed by the Government. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the Rules have been framed under Section 106B of the Act.

3.

In such circumstance, the petitioner prays that Ext.P2 application may be directed to be considered and in the meanwhile he may not be dispossessed, since admittedly the petitioner had been in possession of the property and he has filed an application under Section 7E of the Act.

W.P.(C) No.10645/2014 -24.

It is only proper that the application be considered and till such consideration his possession be not disturbed. The petitioner shall produce the certified copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent shall, after affording an opportunity of hearing, dispose of the matter in accordance with law. It is made clear that no dispossession of the petitioner shall be made till the application is considered.

Writ Petition is disposed of.

Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE jjj