Disposed

The Maradu Grama Panchayath v. District Survey Deputy Director

Kerala HC20 Aug 2009WP(C)/18436/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner Panchayath sought directions to complete Resurvey proceedings of Ayyinithodu埂u. Court directed Panchayath to issue notices to encroachers, Revenue Officials to attend measurement, and complete eviction process within 4 months.

What did the court decide?

Panchayath to issue notice to encroachers; Revenue officials to attend measurement; entire process to be completed within 4 months.

The Maradu Grama Panchayath Vs District Survey… — Execution and Attachment | Kerala HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931

¶5

WP(C).No. 18436 of 2009(Y)

¶6

--------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

------------------

¶9

THE MARADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SRI.P.J.ANTONY, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. P.J.JOSEPH, PULICKAL HOUSE, KANIAMKUNNU, KADAYAPPILLY ROAD, ALUVA-2, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. MR. S.SHANAVAS KHAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

---------------------

¶13

1. THE DISTRICT SURVEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶14

2. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAYANNUR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MARADU.

¶16

4. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, KANAYANNUR, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. P.NARAYANAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

kkms/

¶20

V.GIRI, J.

¶21

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = W.P.(C). No. 18436 OF 2009

¶22

= = = = = = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = Dated this the 20^th day of August 2009.

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The Secretary of Maradu Grama Panchayath is the petitioner in this writ petition seeking appropriate directions to the officials of the Re-survey Department to complete the Resurvey proceedings with respect to Ayyinithodu, within a time frame.

¶25

One Grama Sakthi Janakeeya Samithi had approached this Court in W.P.(C).No.14426/02 alleging unauthorized indiscriminate encroachment by several persons on the banks of the Ayyinithodu running through the limits of the petitioner’s Panchayath. The Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk affirmed the factum of encroachment. A Bench of this Court vide Ext.P1 disposed of the writ petition with the following directions.

¶26

“ 4. As the fact of encroachment on the banks of canal resulting in water clogging alleged by the petitioner in the Writ Petition is admitted by the respondents in their counter affidavits, we deem it proper to direct the respondents 1 to 6 to make concerted efforts for identifying the encroachments/encroachers and to take appropriate stern action for the removal of the encroachments at the earliest, in accordance with law. We will appreciate if the appropriate action is taken by the

¶27

W.P.(C). No. 18436 OF 2009

¶28

¶29

respondents within six months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.”

¶30

When steps were taken to identify the encroachment and assess the extent of the same, several persons approached this Court challenging the steps taken to evict them. This Court by Ext.P4 judgment and similar judgments that survey of the puramboke land with notice to the affected persons may be effected before evicting the encroachments.

¶31

The Panchayath complains that the Survey Department is dragging its feet in completing the Re-survey proceedings. In the meanwhile, the Panchayath officials are hauled up for Contempt of Court in not proceeding with the eviction of encroachments. Hence the writ petition.

¶32

A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is affirmed that the District Survey Superintendent had undertaken the survey of the boundary of Ayyinithodu. A sketch showing the encroachment was forwarded to the Panchayath as evidenced by Annexure-I. Annexure-II contains a list of encroachments. It is contended that it is now for the

¶33

W.P.(C). No. 18436 OF 2009

¶34

¶35

revenue officials to take steps if the Panchayath approaches them in this regard.

¶36

I heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Government Pleader.

¶37

It is evident from Ext.P1 that encroachments on Ayyinithodu will have to be removed. The Panchayath and the State Government are bound by Ext.P1. The dispute is only regarding the completion of the Re-survey measurement with notice to the alleged encroachers. Annexures I and II produced along the statement filed by the Government Pleader in this case shall be acted upon by the Panchayth. They shall issue notice to the encroachers and fix a date for measurement of the property. The Tahsildar along with the Taluk Surveyor the 4^th respondent shall be present, along with subordinate officials on the day/days on which the said task is to be undertaken and an intimation from the Panchayath may be treated by the Revenue Officials as requisition made at the instance of this Court. The measurement of the property as aforementioned shall be completed on the days on which the measurement is proposed to be undertaken.

¶38

W.P.(C). No. 18436 OF 2009

¶39

¶40

A sketch may also be drawn up in this regard by the survey officials, and the same shall be endorsed by the revenue officials also. The Panchayath shall then proceed to take action to evict such encroachments on the basis of the sketch drawn up, on completion of the process of aforementioned. The encroachers shall necessarily be evicted. The entire process as above mentioned shall be completed within 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶42

( V.GIRI ) JUDGE

¶43

kkms/

The Maradu Grama Panchayath v. District Survey Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Maradu Grama Panchayath v. District Survey Deputy Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs Mayakumari.M.

Anwar Sadath.E Vs State of Kerala

Sini Abraham Vs State of Kerala and Others

M.K. Dinesan Vs Cochin University of Science&Technology

M.v.Mary Vs State of Kerala

Suma Cheriyan Vs State of Kerala