AHAMMEDKUTTY @ BAVA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As common issues arise in these cases, these Writ Petitions are disposed on the basis of by this common judgment.

(2.) The facts in these cases are almost similar and it is averred that the property purchased by the respective petitioners had originally belonged to a tile factory and factory was sold long back for due consideration and after several assignments, the petitioners had obtained the property on the basis of the sale deed concerned which have been produced as Ext.P-1 in these Writ Petitions. It is further averred that they are paying land tax in respect of the abovesaid properties in question and that the property in question is exempted under Sec.81(c) of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963, for industrial purposes and that since the industry had stopped functioning, the exemption granted was ceased and it is on this premise, the 3rd respondent has issued Ext.P-4 order in these cases. It is the further case of the petitioners that the petitioners and their assigners were in possession of the property for the last several years and it was wrongly including in the abovesaid order. That therefore, the respective petitioners have filed an application under Sec.85(8) of the KLR Act, seeking exemption under Sec. 7E of the KLR Act. and the said application has been produced as Ext.P-5 in these cases. That the 4 th respondent has now issued an order restraining alienation of the property and that the 5th respondent is not accepting basic tax. It is the case of the petitioners that if a considered decision is not rendered on Ext.P-5 application by the 3rd respondent Taluk Land Board, Tirur, the petitioners will be put to much difficulties. It is in the light of the abovesaid aspects that the petitioners have filed the instant Writ Petitions seeking a mandamus to direct the 3rd respondent Taluk Land Board to consider and pass orders on Ext.P-5 application filed by the petitioner concerned in these Writ Petitions under Sec. 85(8) of the KLR Act, within a time limit fixed by this Court.

(3.) Heard Sri. C.M.Mohammed Iquabal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these Writ Petitions, Smt.A.C.Vidhya, learned Govt. Pleader appearing for respondents in W.P. (C).Nos.22200/2018 & 22272/2018 and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Govt. Pleader appearing for the respondents in W.P. (C).Nos.22271/2018 & 22223/2018