Fathimath Sameera vs The District Collector on 19 March, 2009

Kerala High Court

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 8822 of 2009(W)


1. FATHIMATH SAMEERA, W/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. THE TAHSILDAR,KASARAGOD.

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,KUDLU VILLAGE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.V.SOHAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :19/03/2009

 O R D E R
                     ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                    ================
                W.P.(C) NO. 8822 OF 2009 (W)
                =====================

           Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009

                        J U D G M E N T

Petitioner submits that the 1st respondent has issued Ext.P1

patta dated 29/8/2001. According to the petitioner, while

constructing the compound enclosing the property, it came to

her knowledge that she was in possession of an excess area

of .75 cents. It is stated that thereupon she filed Ext.P4

application before the 1st respondent requesting that the

aforesaid excess area of .75 cents may be assigned to her.

Orders have not been passed on the said application. However,

in the meantime, petitioner apprehends that steps are being

taken to dispossess her from the aforesaid land. It is in these

circumstances, the writ petition has been filed.

2. The above being the grievance of the writ petitioner,

at this stage, the appropriate order to be passed is to direct the

1st respondent to pass orders on Ext.P4 application for

assignment keeping in abeyance further proceedings to

dispossess the petitioner or to cause damage to the property in

her possession.

WPC 8822/09
:2 :

3. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with the

following directions.

(1) That the 1st respondent shall pass orders on Ext.P4

with notice to the petitioner and as expeditiously as possible,at

any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this

judgment.

(2) It is directed that in the meanwhile, the petitioner

shall not be dispossessed nor shall any damage be caused to the

compound wall covering .75 cents situated in RS

N0.172/IA3A1A8 of Kudlu Village, Kasargod Taluk.

(3) Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment

before the 1st respondent for compliance.

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp

Leave a Comment Cancel