IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36803 of 2008(F)
1. MUKALAL MANOHARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. CHENGALAI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
3. METTAPPALLIL MATHAI,
For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT
For Respondent :SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :19/01/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P(C)No. 36803 of 2008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner claims to be in ownership and possession of 50
cents of land on which a house bearing No. C.PII-417 is situate, in Re-
survey No. 30 in Chuzhali Amsom, Kolathur Desom. The petitioner’s
grievance is that, that house is now shown in the list of families below
poverty line (BPL) published by the 2nd respondent Panchayat, wherein
the 3rd respondent has been shown as the occupier of the said building.
According to the petitioner, the petitioner himself is in occupation of that
building and the 3rd respondent does not have any possession in
respect of that building. In the above circumstances, the petitioner has
filed Ext.P11 representation before the 1st respondent in this regard for
disposing which according to the petitioner, the District Collector has
jurisdiction under Circular No. 24333/DD 3/08/L.S.G.V. dated 8.4.2008
issued by the Government. The petitioner therefore seeks a direction to
the 1st respondent District Collector to consider and pass orders on
Ext.P1 expeditiously.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the
Counsel for the 2nd respondent also.
W.P(C)No. 36803 of 2008 – 2 –
Although notice has been served on the 3rd respondent, there is
no appearance on behalf of the 3rd respondent. After hearing the
petitioner, the learned Government Pleader and counsel appearing for
the 2nd respondent Panchayat, I dispose of this writ petition with a
direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11,
as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity
of being heard to the petitioner as well as respondents 2 and 3.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
rhs