GLOY ABRAHAM Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioners, their father was in possession of 2.12 acres of land. However, when Ext.P1 patta was issued, assignment was only in respect of 1.12 acres. It is stated that despite the issuance of patta in 1973, their father continued to be in possession of the whole land till his death, and that thereafter, petitioners are in possession of the land.

(2.) According to the petitioners, complaining that while issuing patta, 1 acre of their land was excluded, they made Exts.P3 and P4 applications for assignment of 50 cents each. Petitioners submit that although the 4th respondent gave a report favourable to them, the matter is still pending before the 3rd respondent. It is stated that seeking expeditious action on Exts.P3 and P4, they have submitted Ext.P5 representation and even on that representation, orders have not been passed. It is with this complaint, the writ petition is filed.

(3.) In the aforesaid circumstances, what is required is that the 3rd respondent, before whom Exts.P3 and P4 are pending, should WPC No. 30422/10 pass orders on these applications. In that view, I dispose of this writ petition directing the 3rd respondent to consider Exts.P3 and P4 applications made by the petitioners. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 8 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition.