AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Antony Dominic, J.—Petitioner states that she was evicted from her property following its acquisition for the purpose of setting up the factory for FACT, Cochin Division. According to the petitioner, as part of the rehabilitation package, she was allotted 3.90 ares of land in R.S. No. 5/12 in block NO. 38 of Puthenkuriz Village. It is stated that though the petitioner continued in possession of the said land, she could not obtain Patta in respect of the same. She made applications to respondents 2 and 3 and the 2nd respondent also called for a report from the 3rd respondent. It is stated that thereafter there has not been any progress in the matter, despite Ext.P5 representation submitted to the respondents. It is in these circumstances the writ petition is filed.
On instructions the Government Pleader submits that the petitioner''s husband is in possession of 43 cents of land and that the respondents are entertaining a doubt as to whether the said plot of land was allotted to her husband as part of the rehabilitation package and that if that be so, the petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of the package.
Even if there is any such doubtful circumstance, necessarily an enquiry into that question should be conducted by the respondents and once the enquiry is completed and if the petitioner is ultimately found entitled, necessarily, final order on the claim of the petitioner for issuing Patta in her favour has to be passed.
Since according to the Government Pleader, the enquiry is pending, I direct the 2nd respondent to complete the enquiry into the claim of the petitioner for issuance of the Patta in respect of the land mentioned above and if the petitioner is found to be eligible to issue Patta, the same will be issued. The aforesaid process shall be completed within 4 months.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.