Disposed

Aboobacker K.A. and Others v. State of Kerala, Rep. by Secretary to

Kerala HC10 Dec 2010WP(C)/6967/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three petitioners challenged a stop memo preventing road construction on purampoke land. The court held that as they had no title, filing for land assignment was necessary, but the stop memo was not illegal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that if the petitioner uses the road for ingress and egress, it will not be obstructed.

Aboobacker K.A. and Others Vs State of Kerala, Rep. by… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 10TH DECEMBER 2010 / 19TH AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 6967 of 2008(D)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

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

¶9

1. ABOOBACKER K.A. S/O.K.B.ALIKUTTY KUPPIYAN HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM, OKKAL P.O.

¶10

2. SHAJI K.A., S/O.K.B.ALIKUTTY KUPPIYAN HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM, OKKAL P.O.

¶11

3. SUDHEER K.A., S/O.K.B.ALIKUTTY KUPPIYAN HOUSE, CHELAMATTOM, OKKAL P.O.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.R.PARTHASARATHY

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

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

¶15

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., REVENUE DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶17

3. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶18

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶19

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NARAYANAN

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

svs/

¶22

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶23

W.P.(C) No. 6967 of 2008 D

¶24

Dated this the 10^th day of December, 2010

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

Petitioner approached this Court when by Ext.P6

¶27

stop memo issued by the fourth respondent, he was prevented from constructing a road in the purampoke land. According to the petitioner, the road was already in existence and that he only did the maintenance work. However, admittedly, the petitioner does not have title over the land in question.

¶28

Eventhough it is the case of the petitioner that he constructed the road on the strength of Exts.P1 to P4, having regard to the fact that the petitioner does not have title over the land in question, it cannot be said that Ext.P6 is illegal. Therefore, the proper course was that the petitioner ought to have made an application for assignment of the land to the assigning authority under the Land Assignment Act.

¶29

With that liberty, I dispose of this writ petition, clarifying

¶30

W.P.(C) No.6967/08

¶31

: 2 :

¶32

that if the petitioner is using the road for ingress and egress, that will not be obstructed or prevented.

¶33

Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶34

aks

¶35

// True Copy //

¶36

P.A. To Judge

Aboobacker K.A. and Others v. State of Kerala, Rep. by Secretary to

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aboobacker K.A. and Others v. State of Kerala, Rep. by Secretary to

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

Aseena John Vs M.G.University

Maharaja Vs M/S.Dhar Industries Ltd.

P.K.Kammad Kutty Vs State of Kerala

C.Madhavanunni Vs the Tahsildar & Another

A.Sukumaran Nair Vs State of Kerala

Lekshmikutty Amma Vs Village Officer