Allowed

M.G.Kuttappan v. the District Collector, Ernakulam & Ors.

Kerala HC22 Jun 2011WP(C)/1562/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court examined a claim by the petitioner for eviction of encroachers from government land. It found that the petitioner himself encroached on government property. The petitioner was directed to evict all identified encroachers, including himself, forthwith.

What did the court decide?

Direction to evict all encroachers including the petitioner from the specified government land.

M.G.Kuttappan Vs the District Collector, Ernakulam & Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933

¶4

WP(C).No. 1562 of 2011(U) --------------------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

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

¶7

M.G.KUTTAPPAN, MALIYEKKAL HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN SRI.P.P.BIJU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030.

¶12

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PVIP SUB DIVISION NO.2, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 542.

¶13

3. THE TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNAD, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 542.

¶14

4. NARAYANI, W/O.KUNJIRAMAN, KANNIMOLATH HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 554.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.K.ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU R4 BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

WP(C)NO.1562/2011

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

P1 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 2/8/2010 SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

P2 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3.

¶23

P3 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 10/11/2010.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J

¶29

W.P.(C) No.1562 OF 2011

¶30

Dated this the 22^nd day of June 2011

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner who is stated as the owner of the property in question has approached this Court seeking for a direction to be given to the respondents 1 to 3 to evict all encroachers including the 4^th respondent from the government land ie, the bund of the PVIP canal between Meprathupady junction and Perumbavoor - Kizhakkambalam PWD road in Vengola Village, forthwith.

¶33

On completion of service of notice, the 4^th respondent has entered appearance through the counsel and submitted that the property mentioned in Exts.P1 to P3 does not belong to her. In the said circumstances, the petitioner was directed to implead the affected party as per the interim order dated 08-03-2011. The petitioner has filed I.A No.8478/2011 in this regard, seeking to implead the additional respondents 5 and 6.

¶34

Meanwhile the 2^nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the complaint preferred by the petitioner was considered and as requested by him, the request to have measured and demarcated the land of the 4^th respondent was again forwarded to the Tahsildar (3^rd respondent), who reported that the land was already demarcated on 30-01-2010. It is also

¶35

W.P.(C) No. 1562/2011

¶36

¶37

stated that the Department land in Survey Nos.277, 278 & 279 was also demarcated by the Tahsildar on the same day. Survey Nos.277 & 278 pertain to the Government property belonging to the Irrigation Department; while survey No.279 is the adjoining property belonging to individuals. It is pointed out that sketch of the survey stated as obtained by the 2^nd respondent on 16-02-2011 shows that there is no encroachement in survey No.278 (Government Land) made by the 4^th respondent. Paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit is more relevant for the purpose of this case, which reads as follows:

¶38

“ In the sketch received in this respondents office from the Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu Taluk, four encroachments are marked. They are as follows:

¶39

Survey No.277

¶40

Sri.Das M.K, S/o Kumaran, Maliekkal House. 2. Sri. Govindan Rajappan, Maliekkal House, Survey No.278

¶41

Sri. Govindan Kuttappan, Maliekkal House. 2. Sri.Kuriachan Reni, Vanai House.

¶42

It may be noted that the encroacher Sri.Govindan Kuttappan is the petitioner himself. As per the petitioner's request for demarcate the Government land adjoining to the property of Smt. Narayani (279/1), a letter was sent to the Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu to demarcate the said land. In response to the letter, the Tahsildar reported that the portion was also surveyed and included in the sketch. No encroachment is marked in the sketch adjoining to the property of Smt.Narayani.

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 1562/2011

¶44

¶45

This respondent is duly bound to evict the encroachments on department land and safeguard the interest of the Government.”

¶46

It has been asserted in the counter affidavit that, as per the petitioner's request for demarcating the Government land adjoining to the property of 4^th respondent (Sy. No.279/1), the Tahsildar was instructed to report all the relevant aspects and the report along with the sketch forwarded does not reveal any encroachment at the hands of the 4^th respondent, simultaneously adding that the 2^nd respondent is duty bound to evict encroachments on department land and safeguard the Government land.

¶47

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, this Court finds that there is no encroachment by the 4^th respondent who was alleged as the culprit, by the petitioner, though the petitioner later sought to implead the daughter of the 4^th respondent and another person by filing I. A No.8478. In view of the specific assertion in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit pointing out that the petitioner himself has encroached into the Government property, there will be a direction to the concerned respondent to evict all encroachments as mentioned in paragraph

¶48

W.P.(C) No. 1562/2011

¶49

¶50

4 of the counter affidavit including that of the petitioner and the others concerned including the persons who derived the title from the 4^th respondent, if any such encroachment is there at their hands, which shall be effected forthwith, in accordance with law and giving proper notice of hearing in this regard.

¶51

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶52

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶53

vdv

M.G.Kuttappan v. the District Collector, Ernakulam & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.G.Kuttappan v. the District Collector, Ernakulam & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.F.Noushad Vs the Dist. Collector, Alappuzha and Othes

Sahida Vs the District Collector

A.K.Moideen Kutty and Another Vs the Manager, Canara Bank and Others

The Manager, State Bank of Mysore Vs Saji P.Mathew

Dr.E.Anzarudeen Vs State of Kerala

Robit Chacko Vs Binoy @ Bionu and Others