Partly allowed

Manoharan v. District Collector and 5 Others

Kerala HC18 Jul 2011WP(C)/38488/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to eject unauthorized occupants from irrigation land and clear encroachments on a pathway. Court directed the Superintending Engineer to consider the encroachment report and pass orders within three months, noting that pending civil litigation should not cause inaction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Second Respondent to consider the petitioner's application and encroachment report and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Manoharan Vs District Collector and 5 Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2011 / 27TH ASHADHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 38488 of 2010(I)

¶6

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

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

¶9

C.A.MANOHARAN, CHAKKINIYATH VEETTIL, KORATTY EAST P.O., CHIRANGARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680308.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.P.SAJAN

¶11

SRI.M.MOHAMED NAVAZ

¶12

RESPONDENTS: -----------------------

¶13

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682030.

¶14

SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE IRRIGATION SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PROJECT CIRCLE OFFICE, PIRAVAM, PIN-686664.

¶15

ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SUB DIVISION NO.II, IRRIGATION OFFICE, CHALAKKUDY, CHALAKKUDY P.O., PIN-609307.

¶16

THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE IRRIGATION ENGINEER, KORATTY SECTION, CHIRANGARA, PIN-680003.

¶17

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, AYYANTHOL P.O., THRISSUR, PIN-680003.

¶18

TAHSILDAR, MUKUNTHAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, MUKUNDAPURAM, PIN-691585.

¶19

WP(C).No. 38488 of 2010(I)

¶20

V.P.JOY, VEENNUKARAN VEETTIL, KORATTY EAST P.O., CHIRANGARA, 680308.

¶21

P.O.SEBASTIAN, PERPPADAN VEETTIL,

¶22

KORATTY EAST P.O., CHIRANGARA-680308.

¶23

*ADDL.R9. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, THRISSUR THRISSUR.

¶24

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL. R7 AND R8 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

WP(C).No. 38488 of 2010(I)

¶27

APPENDIX

¶28

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶29

EXT.P1	:	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1824/87 OF ANNAMANADA SROL
EXT.P2	:	TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT OF THE THAHASILDAR.
EXT.P3	:	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 12.01.2010
EXT.P4	:	TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.8936/MR-E/87/IRRIG DATED 20.09.1988
EXT.P4a	:	READABLE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO..8936/MR-E/87/IRRIG DATED 20.09.1988
EXT.P5	:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS DATED 2.8.2010.

¶30

/TRUE COPY/

¶31

P.S. TO JUDGE.

¶32

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 38488 OF 2010

¶34

Dated this the 18^th July, 2011

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The petitioner has approached this Court with the

¶37

following prayers:

¶38

“(i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P2 report and Ext.P3 and P5 applications and issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order direction directing respondent 2 to 4 to take necessary and immediate action to evict the unauthorized occupation of Respondents 7 and 8 in the irrigation puramboke and also remove the encroachment of respondent 7 and 8 over the pathway provided by the Irrigation department.

¶39

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, commanding the 3^rd respondent to consider and pass orders in respect of the complaints raised Ext.P2 and remove the encroachment of respondent 7 and 8 over the pathway provided by the Irrigation department and the resultant obstruction caused thereby. (iii) to grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems just and fit in the nature and circumstance of this case. ”

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 38488 OF 2010

¶42

Inspite of completion of service of notice, no counter

¶43

affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the State/department submits that the proceedings could not be finalised by the second respondent only for the reason that there is a civil suit pending in the Munsiff's court, Chalakkudy, however adding that but for the said intimation, it is not revealed whether any interim order of injunction or such other orders have been passed.

¶44

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Ext. P2 report submitted by the Tahsildar, the encroachment made by the concerned respondents was brought to the notice of the authorities concerned and inspite of submission of necessary application by the petitioner, the same has been kept in cold storage , which hence is sought to be intercepted. The learned counsel also submits that by virtue of the authority vested upon the second respondent, as conferred by the State Government vide Ext. P4, it is for the second respondent to consider the matter and finalise the same and that the callous negligence or inaction on the part of the second respondent is

¶45

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 38488 OF 2010

¶47

liable to be deprecated; also adding that mere pendency of a civil suit or that the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings cannot give a green card to the second respondent to refrain from taking appropriate action.

¶48

After hearing both the sides, this Court finds considerable force in the aforesaid submission. In the said circumstance, the second respondent is directed to consider the application preferred by the petitioner with reference to Ext.P2 report submitted by the Tahsildar (6^th respondent) and such other relevant materials and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, of course, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned.

¶49

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶50

Manoharan v. District Collector and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoharan v. District Collector and 5 Others

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

Vattavada Grama Panchayat Vs M.G.Rajamanickam I.A.S

K.v.Raveendranathan Nair Vs P.K.Rajeev

P.M.Hassankutty Vs Stationary Controller and Others

Jobby Thomas Vs Mini Antony,District Collector,Kottayam

K.M.Ramani Vs G.Vijayakumar

Kunhiraman and Others Vs C.J.Joseph and Others