Chandroth Ponnembeth Sainaba vs The District Collector on 6 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 30188 of 2008(R)


1. CHANDROTH PONNEMBETH SAINABA,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KANNUR.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE TAHSILDAR (REVENUE),

3. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, THALASSERY,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.A.MOHAMED MUSTAQUE

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :06/01/2009

 O R D E R
                    ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
              -----------------------
                W.P.(C).No.30188 OF 2008
             ------------------------
           Dated this the 6th day of January, 2009.

                         JUDGMENT

Petitioner states that out of 33.76 acres of land in

R.S.No.175 of Muzhakunnu amsom Avilam Vilakkode

desom in Thalassery Taluk, her husband surrendered 13

acres of land, in view of the provisions contained under the

Kerala Land Reforms Act. In so far as the remaining 20

acres of land is concerned, the property was remaining

unattended and in the meanwhile petitioner lost her

husband. Subsequently the petitioner made Ext.P1

application to the District Collector for getting the property

surveyed and demarcated. There was no response to Ext.P1

and the petitioner pursued the matter by filing a complaint

to the Chief Minister’s Public Grievance Cell. That was

responded by Ext.P2 informing the petitioner that the

matter has been forwarded to the District Collector and that

WP(c).No.30188/08 2

a report was obtained. The report obtained from the District

Collector is Ext.P3. This report says that the District Collector

took up the matter with the Tahsildar, who intimated that 3

months period is required to complete the survey as applied

for by the petitioner. Ext.P3 is dated 21.2.2008. It is stated

that despite the expiry of almost an year, there has not been

any progress in the survey applied for by the petitioner. It is

with that grievance that this writ petition is filed.

2. From the facts as stated above, it is obvious that the

petitioner had applied for getting the balance property

surveyed and the Tahsildar concerned required only 3 months

time for completing the same. Despite that, the fact remains

that even as on date there has not been any progress in this

matter. In view of this, it is directed that respondents 1 and 2

shall ensure that the survey of the property of the petitioner as

applied for in Ext.P1 is initiated and completed. This shall be

done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4

months of production of a copy of the judgment.

WP(c).No.30188/08 3

petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before

respondents 1 and 2 for compliance.

(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/

WP(c).No.30188/08 4