Partly allowed

M.C.Joseph v. State Ofkerala

Kerala HC31 Oct 2011WP(C)/19314/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged encroachment by respondents 5 and 6 on public road puramboke land obstructing entry. Respondent 4 (Panchayath) conceded encroachment but lacked authority over PWD land. Court directed Respondent 3 (PWD) to evict encroachers within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent 3 (Assistant Executive Engineer) to evict respondents 5 and 6 from the encroached PWD puramboke land within four weeks from the date of the judgment.

M.C.Joseph Vs State Ofkerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

MONDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2011 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 19314 of 2011(L)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

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

¶8

M.C.JOSEPH, S/O.CHACKO, AGED 48, PALLIKUNNEL HOUSE, KEEZHOOR P.O., THALAYOLAPARAMBU, PIN-686605.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE

¶10

SRI.P.PRIJITH

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

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

¶13

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY (LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN-695001.

¶14

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001.

¶15

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. ROADS DIVISION, THALAYOLAPARAMBU, PIN-686605.

¶16

4. THE SECRETARY, MULAKKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MULAKKULAM, PIN-686610.

¶17

5. KAMALA, W/O.LATE N.M.VIJAYAN, KUNNAPPILLY HOUSE, ALINCHUVADU, PERUVA P.O., PIN-686610.

¶18

6. BIJU, S/O.LATE N.M.VIJAYAN, KUNNAPPILLY HOUSE, ALINCHUVADU, PERUVA P.O., PIN-686610.

¶19

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JOSEPH GEORGE R4 BY ADVS. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

...2/-

¶23

WP(C).No. 19314 of 2011(L)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶26

EXT.P1 : COPY OF RESOLUTION NO. 7 DATED 4-2-98 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.

¶27

EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P. NO. 10076 OF 1998 DATED 27-1-1999.

¶28

EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN C.C.C. NO. 332 OF 1999 DATED 18-1-2000.

¶29

EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN C..M.P. NO. 20733 OF 1999 DATED 18.1.1999.

¶30

EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.C.C.NO. 495 OF 2000 DATED 31-8-2000.

¶31

EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 8-4-2008.

¶32

EXT.P7 : COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE ROAD AND ENCROACHMENT MADE BY THE RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6.

¶33

EXT.P8 : PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ENCROACHMENT IN FRONT OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OF PETITIONER.

¶34

EXT.P9 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 16-6-2011 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶35

EXT.P10 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 18-6-2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶36

EXT.P11 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 18-6-2011 BY THE PETITIONER.

¶37

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

**ANTONY DOMINIC, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.19314 of 2011

¶42

Dated this the 31^st day of October 2011

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

This writ petition has been filed alleging that respondents 5 and 6 have encroached into puramboke and have constructed sheds obstructing the entry of the petitioner into the public road. With these allegations, the petitioner seeks the following direction from this Court.

¶45

(i) Issue of a writ of mandamus or any other writ order or direction compelling the respondents 1 to 4 to evict the respondents 5 and 6 from the puramboke land at Muzhayam moodu Junction and Kochaluchuvadu Junction within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court;

¶46

On behalf of the 4^th respondent, a statement has been filed. The relevant portion of which reads thus:

¶47

“The writ petition is filed for a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to evict respondents 5 and 6 from the puramboke land lying in between the property of the petitioner and the Thalayolaparambu-Peruva Road at Muzhayam moodu Junction & Pulluvettathu Mala -

¶48

¶49

W.P.C.No.19314 of 2011

¶50

Kanjiramattom road at Kochaluchuvadu junction. The said respondents have constructed a shed blocking the petitioner's entry into the road. Therefore, the petitioner had preferred and submitted representation before the District Collector, Panchayath and the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD.

¶51

Pursuant to the above representation, the Panchayath has examined the matter & on inspection it is found that the shed has been put up encroaching upon on puramboke land in Thalayolaprambu Peruva Road at Muzhayam Moodu Junction & Pulluvettathu Mala kanjiramattom Road at Kochalumchuvadu Junction. The above road is a PWD Road and does not vest in the Panchayath. The Panchayath, therefore, submitted that they cannot initiate action to evict the same. However, the Panchayath as per its Resolution No.14(12) dated 25/7/2011 has resolved to provide vacant plots in Kudanikal Colony for those encroachers evicted from PWD Road puramboke within the Panchayat limits.”

¶52

From the statement itself, it is evident that there is

¶53

truth in the allegations raised by the petitioner. Necessarily

¶54

¶55

W.P.C.No.19314 of 2011

¶56

therefore the encroachment into the P.W.D puramboke has to be evicted. This is the 3^rd respondent shall do, at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition.

¶57

(sd/-)

¶58

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)

¶59

jsr

¶60

// True Copy// PA to Judge

¶61

W.P.C.No.19314 of 2011 4

¶62

¶63

W.P.C.No.19314 of 2011

¶64

THOMAS.P.JOSEPH,J.

¶65

Crl.M.C.No. of 200

¶66

ORDER

¶67

19/01/2011

M.C.Joseph v. State Ofkerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.C.Joseph v. State Ofkerala

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

Basheer M Vs Padma Kumar

Krishnankutty Nair Vs Vijayalakshmi

N.K.Ramadasan Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Anilkumar E.K. & Others Vs the Controller of Examinations

Devarajan Vs the District Collector, Malappuram

The Director, Little Flower College Vs Kerala Nurses and Midwives