High Court Kerala High Court

Mathai Rajan vs The District Collector on 16 October, 2007

Kerala High Court
Mathai Rajan vs The District Collector on 16 October, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 30528 of 2007(H)


1. MATHAI RAJAN, S/O.M.MATHAI,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA.
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,

3. THE TAHSILDAR, ADOOR TALUK, ADOOR.

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :16/10/2007

 O R D E R
                   ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
              W.P.(C) No.30528 OF 2007 H
            = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

           Dated this the 16th October, 2007

                    J U D G M E N T

By Ext. P2 issued under the Land Conservancy Act

the petitioner was called upon to vacate 43 sq.ms. of

land. On finding that the said portion of land is

puramboke, petitioner applied for its assignment as per

Ext. P4. It is submitted that there is a building in

the plot and it was necessary to have it assigned in

his favour for the beneficial enjoyment of the

remaining portion of the plot.

2. However, the application was rejected by Ext.

P5 order of the 3rd respondent. Petitioner submits

that, though he has a statutory remedy of appeal

available against Ext. P5, there is every likelihood of

Ext. P5 being implemented resulting in demolition of

the building itself. It is therefore that this writ

petition has been filed requesting for a breathing time

to pursue the appellate remedy that is available.

3. I have heard the learned Govt. Pleader also.

4. Now that the petitioner claims that he has been

WPC No. 30528/07 -2-

in long possession of the land with a building therein

I think, a reasonable time should be given to him for

pursuing his statutory remedy that is available.

5. Accordingly, I dispose of this writ petition

directing that the proceedings initiated against the

petitioner under Ext. P1 shall be kept in abeyance for

a period of two weeks and the petitioner, if so

advised, may pursue his appellate remedy and obtain

orders thereon.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-