Kerala High Court Quashes the Order of Tahsildar and Directs To Follow the Directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer.

- Advertisement -

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner wanted to join a patta to the property, however, a part of the property in the survey had been already sold. The Petitioner had filed an application to 1st Respondent with a copy marked to 2nd Respondent. The 1st Respondent had given directions to the 2nd Respondent to enquire into the matter and send a report to the 1st Respondent enabling him to decide the issue as claimed by the Petitioner via communication on 18.11.2016. On 30.01.2017 the 2nd Respondent had passed an impugned order. 


As it was directed to send the report to the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent didn’t send the same and directed the Petitioner to approach the 1st Respondent to redress his grievance via an order on 30.01.2017. The Petitioner aggrieved from the manner of decision by the 2nd Respondent filed this writ petition.

- Advertisement -


Arguments of the Parties

The Petitioner had stated that the Petitioner would be satisfied if the order dated 30.01.2017 was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the 2nd Respondent to conduct an enquiry by allowing both parties and sending a report within a time frame to 1st Respondent.  


- Advertisement -

The Respondents had submitted that if the order passed by the 2nd Respondent was not in full compliance with the directives issued by the 1st Respondent, the 2nd Respondent would enquire the matter in detail and would file a report to 1st Respondent and thus the matter could be remanded back to the 2nd Respondent with a direction to decide the same and send a report within a time frame which might be stipulated by the Court. 


Court’s Observation

The Court had observed that the relegation of the Petitioner to the 1st Respondent was not asked for by the 1st Respondent through proceedings dated 18.11.2016. The 1st Respondent had directed the 2nd Respondent to conduct an enquiry and send a report. The 2nd Respondent had failed to comply with the same. The Court, therefore, interfered with the order passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 30.01.2017 for remitting the same to the 2nd Respondent to do the needful. 


Court’s Decision

- Advertisement -

The Court had disposed of the writ petition by directing the following:

The impugned order dated 30.01.2017 passed by the 2nd Respondent was quashed. The matter was remitted back to the 2nd Respondent to conduct an enquiry and prepare a report. Further, send the same to the 1st Respondent. 


The Court had also directed to give an opportunity of being heard to both the Petitioner and 3rd Respondent. Separate notices should be sent by the 2nd Respondent and on receipt of such notice, it was open to the Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent to respond by making out their case. The report should be prepared and sent by the 2nd Respondent within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Once the report was received from the 2nd Respondent, the 1st Respondent should act upon and decide the plea raised by the Petitioner in his application concerning patta / joint patta of the land within 8 weeks.  

Case: M. Murugan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer & others 

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE JUDGMENT is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgment from courts. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

About the Author

- Advertisement -

Other Posts from this Author

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -spot_img