Disposed

Tharangani Arts & Sports Club v. Sub Inspector of Police, Gandhi Nagar

Kerala HC17 Oct 2013WP(C)/22436/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held there is a disputed question of fact regarding property title and possession, which cannot be adjudicated under Article 226. The Court directed the District Collector to consider a pending representation within two months after hearing the parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioners representation within two months after giving an opportunity of hearing.

Tharangani Arts & Sports Club Vs Sub Inspector of Police… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/25TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 22436 of 2012 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THARANGINI ARTS & SPORTS CLUB, (REG.NO.K 653/93), ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., NAPATHIMALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 562 (REGISTERED), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY M.L. BABU, S/O.LUKOSE, AGED 48, MARAMPIL HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 562.

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.K.NANDINI, SRI.BINU BOSE.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GANDHI NAGAR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 008.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM- 686 002.

¶12

3. ANEESH, S/O.APPU, SECRETARY, AYYANKALI CHARITABLE TRUST, CHELANILKUM KALA, ATHIRAMPUZHA.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.K.T. LILLY. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.P.M.JOSHI, SRI.K.T.SAJU, SRI.SIJI K.PAUL.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 22436 of 2012 (D)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

EXHIBIT-P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR DATED 10-11-1993.

¶20

EXHIBIT-P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED FROM THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR (GENERAL, KOTTAYAM) TO THE PETITIONER CLUB DATED 19-09-2012.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OF THE PROPERTY IN POSSESSION OF PETITIONER CLUB DATED 13-03-1995.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P4 - ORIGINAL COY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE AYYANKALI STATUE INSTALLED BY 3RD RESPONDENT IN PETITIONER'S PROPERTY ON 29-08-2012.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30-08-2012

¶24

EXHIBIT-P6 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22-09-2012.

¶25

ADDL. EXT.P7- COPY OF THE PROGRAMME NOTICE PRINTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 02/12/2012.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶31

========================

¶32

W.P.(C). No. 22436 of 2012

¶33

-------------------------------------------Dated this the 17th day of October, 2013

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner is aggrieved of the course pursued by the 3rd respondent by installing a statue in the property covered by Ext.P3 title deed, which according to the petitioner belongs to the petitioner, who is enjoying the same. The sequence of events as narrated in the writ petition shows that, the petitioner is the owner of the 1 cent of property in Athirampuzha Village, who is enjoying the same with possession and such other rights. It is without any regard to the rights and liberties of the petitioner, that the 3rd respondent chose to install the statue in the said property on 29.08.2012.

¶36

The petitioner has approached the concerned authorities projecting the grievance, but the same did not turn to be fruitful. It is also pointed out that, on the very next day itself, the petitioner had filed Ext.P5 representation before the 1st respondent, followed by Ext.P6 before the 2nd respondent. Since

¶37

the respondents have not taken any prompt action, the petitioner

¶38

W.P.C. No. 22436 of 2012 -2-

¶39

is constrained to approach this Court by filing this writ petition.

¶40

Pursuant to notice on admission ordered by this Court, the 3rd respondent has entered appearance by filing a counter affidavit disputing the title, ownership and possession of the petitioner over the property in question. It is the case of the 3rd respondent that, the petitioner had manipulated some documents and that the original of Ext.P3 is not with the petitioner, but with somebody else. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit rebutting the contents of the counter affidavit, seeking to reiterate and assert the title, possession and such other rights over the property.

¶41

After hearing both the sides, including the learned Government Pleader, this Court finds that, there is a disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. The issue as to the rights and liberties over the property has necessarily to be established before the competent Civil Court. However, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, Ext.P6

¶42

W.P.C. No. 22436 of 2012 -3-

¶43

representation preferred by the petitioner is still pending consideration before the 2nd respondent and if the issue can be finalized by the 2nd respondent, there is nothing wrong in pursuing such a course at the first instance before relegating the parties to a Civil Court.

¶44

Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. This shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶45

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the 2nd respondent for further steps. The writ petition is disposed of.

¶46

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶47

kp/-

Tharangani Arts & Sports Club v. Sub Inspector of Police, Gandhi Nagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tharangani Arts & Sports Club v. Sub Inspector of Police, Gandhi Nagar

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

M/S.Vaishya Samaj Vs P.G.Unnikrishnan

Sree Anjaneya Medical Trust Vs Dr. K. Elangovan

Korathodi Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Janardhanan Chettiar Vs a.M.Ashraf

K.K.Chacko Vs the State of Kerala

A.K.Santhosh Vs State of Kerala