1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2nd respondent
Special Tahasildar (LR) to consider and pass orders in S.M.No.234/2017 on the file of the Land Tribunal Ottappalam, within a time limit to be fixed by
this Court. The suo motu proceedings initiated by the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam under Rule 5 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Vesting and Assignment)
Rules, 1970, is one for assignment of the right, title and interest of the landlord vested in the Government under Section 72 of the Kerala Land
Reforms Act, 1963 and for issuance of certificate of purchase under Section 72K of the said Act, read with Rule 14 of the said Rules, in respect of
0.6236 Hectares of land comprised in Sy.Nos.159/7, 158/1, 158/2, 153/2 and 153/3 in Block No.35 of Pudussery West Village in Palakkad Taluk,
Palakkad District.
2. On 04.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader was directed to get instructions.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
4. In Narayanan Namboodiri v. The Special Tahsildar (Land Reforms) and another [Judgment dated 14.03.2018 in W.P.(C)No.28398 of 2017 and
connected cases] this Court noticed that in the writ petitions seeking expeditious disposal of the applications pending before the Land Tribunal for
obtaining purchase certificate, many of the petitioners realised the need for purchase certificate only when they approached the Bank to obtain a loan.
Filing writ petitions seeking expeditious disposal of the applications pending before the Land Tribunal is a routine affair before this Court. Breaking the
queue by directing the Land Tribunals to dispose of the cases out of turn would result in derailing the process of disposal of the cases pending before
the Tribunal. Therefore, the Land Tribunal is bound to dispose the cases in accordance with the seniority of registration of such cases.
5. In Narayanan Namboodiri, this Court noticed that by G.O.(P).No.09/2018/RD dated 22.02.2018 the Government of Kerala appointed the Village
Officers coming within the jurisdiction of each Land Tribunal constituted under Section 99 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 for bringing to the
notice of the Land Tribunal concerned any fact or information required by the Land Tribunal or for moving that Tribunal to take any action necessary
for the implementation of the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, there may not be any difficulty to obtain the reports through the Village Officers
concerned. Before this Court, the Government in principle agreed for speedy disposal of the cases filed by the senior citizens and addressed all the
Land Tribunals to give priority to such cases. This Court noticed that in some of the cases, delay occurred on account of serving notice on the
landlords, which can be averted if the applicant in such cases co-operate with the Land Tribunal in taking out notice to such persons. On consideration
of the facts and circumstances, this Court disposed of those writ petitions with certain directions. Paragraph 2 of the said judgment reads thus;
“2. On consideration of the facts and circumstances as above, this Court is of the view that the following directions can be issued for expeditious
disposal of the cases by the Land Tribunal:
(i) If it is felt that there is delay in obtaining reports through the Revenue Inspectors on account of their shortage, the Land Tribunal is free to get the
reports from the Village Officers concerned. It is the discretion of the Land Tribunal in what manner such reports should be obtained.
(ii) Utmost importance should be given for expeditious disposal of all the cases filed by the senior citizens. The Land Tribunal shall dispose such cases
of senior citizens on seniority basis within six months.
(iii) In respect of all other cases, the Land Tribunal shall follow the seniority of such cases and dispose the same within the maximum outer limit of 18
months unless there is a stay passed by the higher authorities. The Land Tribunal shall not break the seniority of such cases except for any directions
being issued by this Court or any higher authority.
(iv) The parties are given liberty to take out notice to the land owners in such a manner in which the Land Tribunal deems fit to do so, including
publications.
(v) In respect of the matters which are pending before the Deputy Collector, he shall follow the same procedure as mentioned above.
(vi) (underline supplied)
(vi) In respect of the proceedings in which all the steps have been completed which are ripe for passing orders as on today, the Land Tribunal shall
pass orders within two months and the directions issued in earlier paragraphs would not affect those matters. However, in all other cases, the
directions shall be strictly followed.
(vii) The Government order, G.O.(P).No.09/2018/ RD, dated 22.02.2018 will form part of this Judgment.â€
6. In the instant case, based on the report of the Village Officer, Pudussery West Village, the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam initiated suo motu
proceedings as S.M.No.234/2017, as evidenced by Ext.P1 receipt dated 01.02.2017, for assignment of the right, title and interest of the landlord vested
in the Government under Section 72 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 and for issuance of certificate of purchase under Section 72K of the said
Act, read with Rule 14 of the said Rules, in respect of the property referred to hereinbefore.
7. The learned Senior Government Pleader would point out that the total pendency of suo motu proceedings in the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam is 2434.
8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides this Court finds that the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam can be directed
to dispose of S.M.No.234/2017 following the directions issued by this Court in
9. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the Land Tribunal, Ottappalam, to dispose of S.M.No.234/2017, strictly in accordance with
law, following the directions issued by this Court in paragraph 2 of the judgment in Narayanan Namboodiri, referred to supra.
No order as to costs.
