Disposed

Valsamma v. the District Collector, Kottayam

Kerala HC20 Jun 2012WP(C)/4833/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to grant permissions for soil removal. Court observed dispute regarding deposit of earth. Directed second respondent to conduct enquiry, prepare a sketch to demarcate dumping area, and dispose matter within six weeks hearing parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to second respondent to conduct enquiry, prepare a sketch demarcating dumping area, and decide matter within six weeks after hearing.

Valsamma Vs the District Collector, Kottayam — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/30TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 4833 of 2012 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

VALSAMMA, AGED 48 YEARS W/O. CHANDIKUNJU, AGED 48 YEARS, ANDUKKUNNEL HOUSE PAYYAPPAR P.O. ANTHYALAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM

¶11

PIN CODE 686001

¶12

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALA P.O.

¶13

KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686575

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.I.ABDUL SALAM

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WPC NO. 4833/2012

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT.P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.178/2012 DT 21/1/2012 OF MEENACHIL SUB REGISTRY OFFICE
EXT P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT DT 14/2/2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXT.P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 17/2/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENTS
EXT.P3(a):	TRUE COY OF THE POSTAL REGISTRATION RECEIPT DT 21/2/2012 FOR DESPATCH OF EXT.P3 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXT.P4:	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT 21/2/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXT P4(a):	TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DT 21/2/2012 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FOR EXT.P4 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT	S' EXHIBITS

¶20

NIL

¶21

// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

¶22

¶23

T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶24

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

¶25

W.P.(C)No.4833 Of 2012

¶26

-------------------------------------------------DATED THIS THE 20^th DAY OF JUNE, 2012

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents to

¶29

grant the prayers sought for in Exhibits P3 and P4.

¶30

The petitioner is the owner of 21.40 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.71/6 of Block No.4 of Bharananganam Village. The petitioner wants to remove soil and rocks from the said property, for levelling it before construction of a house. Permission was sought from the Revenue Divisional Officer. Exhibit P2 is the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, wherein certain conditions have been prescribed for removal of the earth. The permission was granted after getting a report from the Tahsildar.

¶31

Going by Exhibit P2 order, 150 loads of red earth was allowed to be removed and deposited in another property having an extent of 25.70 Ares in R.S.No.258/5 in Block No.30 of Kadanadu Village.

¶32

W.P.(C)No.4833/12

¶33

-2-

¶34

The petitioner thereafter filed a representation as per Exhibit P3, wherein the details of seven vehicles have been mentioned, for the purpose of transportation of the red earth. Exhibit P4 is a further representation filed in that regard. Failing to get any positive reply in the matter, this Writ Petition has been filed.

¶35

This Court by interim order dated 28.2.2012 directed the learned Government Pleader to get instructions in respect of the question as to whether the petitioner has deposited the earth removed from his property in the other property mentioned in Ext.P2 order. By another interim order dated 12.3.2012, this Court directed the Geologist having jurisdiction over the area to inspect the property mentioned in Exhibit P2 and to file a report as to whether 15 loads of earth have been deposited in the property covered by Exhibit P2.

¶36

Thereafter a report has been filed before this Court, along with a memo by the learned Government Pleader. It is stated in the report as follows:

¶37

“On inspection it is found that subsoil is extracted from an area of about 19 metres of length, 9 metres of breadth

¶38

W.P.(C)No.4833/12

¶39

-3-

¶40

and 2.5 metres of depth. On calculation the volume of the extracted area comes about 427.5 M3. It means that about 855 MT(about 85 loads-depends upon the capacity of the vehicle) of subsoil can be extracted from the area. It is also stated in the report that on inspection of the area of 25.7 Ares comprised in Sy.No.258/5 of Block No.30 of Kadanad Village along with the Village Officer, Kadanad, in the presence of the property owner Sri Shaju Sebastian, it is seen that not even a single load of subsoil extracted from the permitted area was seen deposited in the property prescribed and a statement by the property owner has also been produced along with the memo filed by the Geologist.

¶41

The petitioner has filed an additional affidavit

¶42

thereafter.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has only extracted 15 loads, which has already been dumped in to the property covered by Exhibit P2. It is stated that the property is a larger extent and therefore unless the area is specified, it will be difficult for the petitioner to carry out the work.

¶44

W.P.(C)No.4833/12

¶45

-4-

¶46

The learned Government Pleader submitted that going by the report of the Geologist, the petitioner has not dumped any load of earth collected.

¶47

Since the petitioner disputes the same, it is only proper that the 2^nd respondent consider the entire matter. The 2^nd respondent will conduct due enquiry into the matter and since the petitioner requests for a direction to specifically demarcate the area where she will have to be dump the earth collected from her property, a sketch also will be prepared and provided to her for enabling her to do the work. Appropriate decision will be taken after hearing the petitioner and the property owner, namely Shri Shaju Sebastian, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the Writ Petition, by the petitioner.

¶48

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶49

Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR , JUDGE)

¶50

dsn

Valsamma v. the District Collector, Kottayam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valsamma v. the District Collector, Kottayam

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

Dr. Ganesh Mohan Vs Dr. Balakrishna Pillai

Ammini Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Kappakalayil Vs the Housing & Urban Development Corporation

Sathianathan Vs State of Kerala

Kozhikode District Co-Operative Travel & Tourism Development Vs the District Registrar (General)

K.Sunder Vs State of Kerala