Disposed

David Mathew and Another v. Asst.Executive Engineer and Others

Kerala HC6 Jul 2010WP(C)/3223/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged notices under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act directing them to vacate encroached road land. The Court allowed a three-week extension for filing an appeal and seeking interim orders before coercive implementation begins.

What did the court decide?

Coercive proceedings pursuant to the notices are kept in abeyance for three weeks to enable appeal and interim orders.

David Mathew and Another Vs Asst.Executive Engineer and Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 3223 of 2010(C)

PETITIONER(S):

DAVID MATHEW, S/O. DAVID, AGED 56 , KUTITHARA VEEDU, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶10

N.M.STANLEY, S/O. N.C.MATHEW, AGED 61, NOCHIPARAMBIL VEEDU, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI

¶12

SRI.BENHUR JOSEPH MANAYANI

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

¶15

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS SECTION, P.W.D., ERNAKULAM.

¶16

DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶17

COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD. ERNAKULAM.

¶18

STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶19

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH.

¶20

SRI.M.S.ANIL KUMAR FOR ADDL.R4

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

S. Siri Jagan, J.

¶23

W.P(C) No. 3223 of 2010

¶24

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶25

Dated this, the 6^th day of July, 2010.

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Petitioners are challenging Exts.P3 and P4 notices issued under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Rules, directing the petitioners to vacate certain land which, according to the respondents, the petitioners have encroached into. A counter affidavit has been filed in which the respondents have chosen to justify the action taken on the ground that the petitioners have encroached into road poramboke. The petitioners now submit that they may be given a reasonable time to file an appeal and get interim orders in that appeal before implementing Exts.P3 and P4 orders.

¶28

After having heard both sides, I am satisfied that this is a reasonable request. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the following direction:

¶29

The petitioners may, if they so wish, file appeal against Exts.P3 and P4 as provided under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. In order to enable them to file appeal and seek interim orders, I direct that coercive proceedings pursuant to Exts.P3 and P4 shall be kept in abeyance for three weeks from today.

¶30

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

¶31

Tds/

¶32

[TRUE COPY]

¶33

P.S TO JUDGE.

David Mathew and Another v. Asst.Executive Engineer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

David Mathew and Another v. Asst.Executive Engineer and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala State Civil Supplies Corpn. Vs Shri. R.a.C.Bhatt & Others

N.J.Susamma Vs the Manager, St.Michael'S College

Dr.Selin Abraham Vs the Director General of Health Services

D.Suresh Kumar Vs Secretary, Trivandrum Corporation

Chennithala Thripperunthara S.Co.Bank Vs Ministry of Petroleum

Joby K.Kuriakose Vs Union of India