CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

M.J. Francis vs District Collector Collectorate And Ors

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 20 January 2021 · Citation: (2021) 01 KL CK 0453

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil K. Narendran, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 28067 Of 2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 322 words
1.

The petitioner, who is stated to be in possession of a property having an extent of 2.21 Acres comprised in Re-Sy.No.24/1 in Block No.14 of

Pallivasal Village, Devikulam Taluk, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding

the 2nd respondent Tahsildar to consider and allow Ext.P4 application dated 30.01.2020 made under the provisions of the Kerala Land Assignment

Rules, 1964 seeking assignment of the aforesaid land. The said application was made after the dismissal of the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner

against the order of cancellation of Patta. Ext.P3 is the order of the 1st respondent District Collector rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner.

2.

On 17.12.2020, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.

3.

On 05.01.2021, when the writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought time to get instructions as to the

extent of registered holding, if any, of the petitioner and members of his family. The learned Special Government Pleader sought time to get

instructions from the 2nd respondent.

4.

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 2nd respondent has already

rejected Ext.P2 application, on 22.12.2020, and therefore, this writ petition may be dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge

the said order in appropriate proceedings.

Having considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed since Ext.P2 application made by the

petitioner has already been rejected by the 2nd respondent, vide order dated 22.12.2020; however, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to

challenge that order in appropriate proceedings.

All legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are left open to be raised before the appropriate authority at appropriate

stage.