IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2009 / 9TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 21116 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JAMEELA BEEVI, WIDOW OF LATE MR.ABDUL KHADER, AGED 58, VILAYIL VEEDU, VALICODE, NEDUMANGAD. BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT.(REVENUE), GOVT.SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, MUSEUM P.O., OPPOSITE OF TRIVANDRUM MUSEUM, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). No. 2116/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.22.11.07 BY R1. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.18.4.08 BY R1. P3. COPY OF THE PHOTO OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF THE PETITIONER. P4. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.16.5.96. P5. COPY OF THE GOVT. ORDER DTD.22.3.96. P6. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.19.10.96. P7. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.18.11.97. P8. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.28.11.97. P9. COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY R3 DTD.21.7.99. P10. COPY OF THE LETTER FROM R3 DTD.17.8.06. P11. COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD.18.12.06. P12. COPY OF THE APPEAL. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.21116 of 2008 ================== Dated this the 31st day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the widow of late Abdul Khader. The said Abdul Khader was proceeded against for recovery of sales tax arrears due from him. It ultimately resulted in sale of 10.5 cents of lands belonging to the said Abdul Khader, which was purchased by the State itself. The same was on 3.12.1983. Subsequently, the Government issued Ext.P5 order dated 22.3.1996, whereby notwithstanding the two year time limit prescribed for reconveyance of bought-in land, the Government offered to reconvey bought-in land provided the party is willing to pay the market value of the property. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an application dated 31.8.1996. The matter was referred to the Revenue authorities and ultimately, by Ext.P11 dated 18.12.2006, the District Collector recommended to the Government that the property may be reconveyed to the petitioner on realising the market value of the property at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per cent. Despite this recommendation, nothing was done in the matter. The petitioner again represented to the Government. The Government by Exts.P1 and P2 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that it is highly belated. The petitioner submits that immediately after Ext.P5 order was passed by the Government on 22.3.1996, the petitioner had filed 2 an application, which was processed as is evidenced by Exts.P6, P7, P9, P10 and P11. As such, it is evident that the petitioner was diligently pursuing the application filed in 1996 itself. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be accused of any lethargy or laches in the matter of pursuing her application, submits the petitioner. The petitioner seeks the following reliefs in this writ petition. “A. That all records relating to Exts.P1, P2 and P11 be called to this Hon'ble Court and a writ of certiorari or other order passed quashing Exts.P1 and P2. B. That a writ of mandamus or other order be passed directing the 1st Respondent to accept the recommendation of the 3rd Respondent contained in Ext.P11 and issue orders reconveying the land detailed therein to the Petitioner and her children detailed in Ext.P11 within a time be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. C. That the 1st Respondent be directed to issue orders reconveying the 10.5 cents in Sy.No. 224/1 to the Petitioner and other legal heirs of late Mr.M.Abdul Khader detailed in Ext.P8 heirship certificate.” 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 3. Although the learned Government Pleader opposes the prayers in the writ petition, he could not dispute that the petitioner had filed the application in 1996 itself and that the same was being processed at various levels. The learned Government Pleader does not dispute Ext.P11, wherein the District Collector had recommended reconveyance of the land on realisation of market value of the property at the rate of Rs.12,000/- per cent. That being so, the petitioner cannot be accused of any laches in the matter of pursuing 3 her application in that regard. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to have the matter decided finally on merits. Accordingly, I direct the 1st respondent to take a final decision in the matter on merits, on the basis of Ext.P11, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge