Disposed

K.T.Vincent v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Oct 2013WP(C)/23270/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two connected writ petitions, the petitioner challenged the closure of a pathway previously declared by a Civil Court as his right of way. The High Court held that the Civil Court verdict establishing this right remains valid and the authorities cannot deny access or obstruct the pathway.

What did the court decide?

The District Collector was directed to clear any hindrance/blocking against the pathway declared by Ext. P1 and P2 and consider the petitioner's grievance.

K.T.Vincent Vs the State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | 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 10TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/18TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 23270 of 2013 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.T.VINCENT, AGED 67 YEARS S/O.LATE THOMAS, FROM KOOTTAMPARAMBIL HOUSE AMMAN KOVIL ROAD, KOCHI 682 035 NOW RESIDING AT TONY BHAVAN NEAR ST FRANCIS XAVIER CHURCH, KALOOR DESOM ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, KOCHI 682 017

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.M.P.RAMNATH SRI.P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL) SMT.UMA R.KAMATH SMT.S.SANDHYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶9

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD KOCHI 682 031

¶10

3. THE SCHEDULE CASTE WELFARE BOARD(EARLIER KERALA STATE HARIJAN WELFARE BOARD),REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR,KAUDIAR,VELLAYAMBALAM P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 003

¶11

4. THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (EARLIER SCHEDULE CASTES WELFARE BOARD) OFFICER ERNAKULAM, STATE HARIJAN WELFARE BOARD, COLLECTORATE BUILDING KAKKANAD, KOCHI 682 031

¶12

5. TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM 682 011 6. VILLAGE OFFICER ERNAKULAM VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM 682 011 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA SP.GP.SC/ST

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10-10-2013, ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.24846/2013 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

MNS

¶15

WP(C).No. 23270 of 2013 (G)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 12-12-1974 IN OS 537/1970 OF THE HON'BLE ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT,ERNAKULAM

¶19

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06-07-1978 OF HON'BLE 3RD ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,ERNAKULAM IN A.S NO 85/1975

¶20

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR'S SKETCH MARKED AS EXT C-1 IN O.S 537/1970 ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF'S COURT,ERNAKULAM DEMARCATING THE PATHWAY (4 FEET=6 LINKS)

¶21

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03-01-1980 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT(AS THEN WAS)

¶22

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF NOTICE DATED 29-08-1980 ISSUED TO PETITIONER BY TALUK SURVEYOR,KANAYANNUR UNDER 5TH RESPONDENT

¶23

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 06-07-2012 SUBMITTED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY SREE KUMARASWARA PULAYA SERVICE SOCIETY FOR GRANT OF PATTA,AS GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER

¶24

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ADVOCATE NOTICE/COMPLAINT DATED 1305-2013 CAUSED TO BE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENTS 2,4,5 AND 6 BY REGISTERED POST ACK DUE WITH THE POSTAL REGISTRATION RECEIPTS AFFIXED THEREUPON

¶25

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE/COMPLAINANT DATED 0607-2013 CAUSED TO BE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENTS BY REGISTERED POST ACK DUE WITH THE POSTAL REGISTRATION RECEIPTS AFFIXED THEREUPON

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶27

//TRUE COPY//

¶28

P.A TO JUDGE

¶29

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.

JUDGMENT

The alleged closure of right of way, which stands settled by virtue of authoritative pronouncement by the competent Civil Court,, is the subject matter of both these writ petitions filed by the same petitioner. For convenience of reference, the parties and exhibits are referred to, as given in W.P.(C) No. 23270 of 2013.

¶34

The sequence of events is as follows : The petitioner claimed right of way through the property belonging to the Government and the issue was sought to be considered by the competent authority, by filing O.S. No. 537 of 1970 before the Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. On completion of trial, Ext. P1 verdict came to be passed, declaring the right of the petitioner over the 'B' Schedule therein, which passes through the Government land described in 'A' schedule. Both the State as well as the erstwhile Kerala State Harijan Welfare Board were parties to the suit.

¶35

Being aggrieved of the said verdict, the State and the Department took up the matter in appeal, wherein interference was

¶36

W.P.(C) Nos. 23270 and 24846 of 2013

¶37

: 2 :

¶38

declined and the appeal was dismissed as borne by Ext. P2 verdict. Ext. P3 is the Surveyor's sketch, which shows the lie and location of the pathway. The measurement and finalization of the proceedings with regard to demarcation of the pathway, was let known to the petitioner, vide Ext. P4 by the then Welfare Officer/4^th respondent, as early as in 1980. Ever since then, the petitioner was enjoying the pathway and there was no interruption from any corner in this regard.

¶39

Of late, there came to be some objection/hindrance from some corners, particularly at the instance of a Trust, who wanted the Government land to be assigned in the name of the Trust. On approaching the Tahasildar/respondent No. 5, the petitioner was let known that, Ext. P6 application was filed for issuance of 'patta' for the entire land in the name of the Trust, which made the petitioner to issue Ext. P7 lawyer's notice on 13.05.2013, pointing out that the issue with regard to the right of the petitioner on the path way stands declared by the Civil Court and that if at all any steps were taken to assign the land, an opportunity of hearing should be given to the petitioner or that the pathway should be left in tact,

¶40

W.P.(C) Nos. 23270 and 24846 of 2013

¶41

: 3 :

¶42

excluding the same from the purview of assignment. Since no action was forthcoming, the petitioner submitted Ext. P8 reminder and after waiting for some time, filed W.P.(C) No. 23270 of 2013 before this Court. When the matter came up for consideration on 24.09.2013, it was adjourned by two weeks, asking the Government Pleader to get instructions.

¶43

After filing W.P.(C) No. 23270 of 2013, things took a different turn. Immediately after two days, the southern entrance of the pathway was closed down by the departmental authorities, joining hands with the Trust, who wanted to assign the same in favour of the latter. This made the petitioner to prefer a complaint before the District Collector on 27.09.2013 [produced as Ext. P1 in W.P.(C) No. 24846 of 2013] and approach this Court again by way of W.P.(C) No. 24846 of 2013. The grievance of the petitioner is that, because of closure of pathway, the petitioner is finding it difficult to enter into his property.

¶44

Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶45

After going through the pleadings and proceedings and after hearing both the sides, this Court finds that the rights and

¶46

W.P.(C) Nos. 23270 and 24846 of 2013

¶47

: 4 :

¶48

liberties of the petitioner over the 'pathway' stands declared by the Civil Court by way of Ext. P1, which stands affirmed by the appellate Court vide Ext. P2. As such, the right of way of the petitioner to have access to his property cannot be denied under any circumstances. It at all any application for assignment is pending before the Department, the respondents have to ensure that the right of the petitioner over 'B' schedule pathway declared as per Ext. P1, and affirmed by Ext. P2, shall be left intact and only the remaining portion can be considered for assignment, subject to the condition that the party who makes the application is eligible for assignment and that it is an assignable land; in accordance with law. The petitioner is entitled to have an opportunity of hearing with regard to any steps, if at all to be taken which involves the rights and liberties of the petitioner over the 'B' Schedule pathway, as described in Exts. P1/P2.

¶49

In the said circumstances, there will be a direction to the District Collector concerned [first respondent in W.P.(C) No. 24846 of 2013] to consider the grievance projected by the petitioner by way of Ext. P1 in W.P.(C) No. 24846 of 2013. The District

¶50

W.P.(C) Nos. 23270 and 24846 of 2013

¶51

: 5 :

¶52

Collector shall also take necessary steps forthwith to see that the hindrance/blocking, if at all any caused with regard to the user of pathway covered by Exts. P1 and P2 [produced in W.P.(C) No. 23270] shall be cleared forthwith.

¶53

Both the writ petitions stand disposed of as above.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶56

kmd

K.T.Vincent v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.T.Vincent v. the State of Kerala

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

Pious Thomas Vs G.Vijayakumar

C.Baby Thankam Vs Sri.N.Madhusoodanan Assari

Gayathri Muraleedharan Vs the Divisional Manager LIC

Snehaprabha Vs the Bar Association

Latef Bin Abdul Jamil Vs the Regional Registration Officer

Babu Vs the District Collector