Disposed

Mary Sebastian v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Oct 2013WP(C)/24013/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a prohibitory order on land. It directed the District Collector to reconsider the petitioner's objections with notice and inspection, while protecting the petitioner's possession of property in Resurvey No. 129/1 pending proceedings on government Puramboke land in a different survey number.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner in possession of Resurvey No. 129/1 protected; District Collector directed to reconsider objections with notice and spot inspection.

Mary Sebastian Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2013/29TH ASWINA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 24013 of 2013 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER:-:

¶7

---------------------------------------------------MARY SEBASTIAN, AGED 70 YEARS W/O.LATE SEBASTIAN, PYNADATH HOUSE, EZHATTUMUGHAM P.O. MUNNOORPPILLY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.SHEEJO CHACKO SRI.SANGEETH C. SUBRAMANIAN SRI.P.JINISH PAUL

¶8

RESPONDENTS:-:

¶9

-------------------------------------------------------1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAND AND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001. 3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 030. 4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM - 682 001. 5. TAHSILDAR, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 101. 6. VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUKUTTY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 576. BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-10-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

WP(C).No. 24013 of 2013 (B)

¶12

APPENDIX

¶13

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶14

EXHIBIT P1. THE COPY S	ALE	DEED BEARING NO.1429/1983 OF ANGAMALY SRO.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY ANGAMALUY	OF SRO	TITLE DEED RELATING BEARING NO.2419/1976 OF .
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY PAYMENT OF	OF LA	TAX RECEIPT DATED 22.04.1987 EVIDENCING THE ND TAX.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY	OF	TAX RECEIPT DATED 18.04.2011.
EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COJPY ISSUED BY	OF THE	POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 18.04.2001 VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUKUTTY.
EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY ANGAMALY S	OF RO.	ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 19.04.2001
EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY 23.05.2001	OF AN	LOAN ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED GAMALY SRO.
EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY	OF	MORTGAGE DEED DATED 18.05.2001.
EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OPERATIVE LOAN ACCOU	OF BAN NT.	LETTER ISSUED BY KARUKUTTY SERVICE CO- K REGD.NO.E-63 EVIDENCING THE CLOSURE OF THE
EXHIBIT P10. TRUE COPY	OF	APPLICATION DATED 12.07.2013.
EXHIBIT P11. TRUE COPY OFFICE OF	OF THE	RECEIPT DATED 12.07.2013 ISSUED FROM THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.
EXHIBIT P12. TRUE COPY	OF	THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.09.2013.
EXHIBIT P13. TRUE COPY BEFORE THE	OF VI	LETTER DATED NIL FILED BY THE PETITIONER LLAGE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P14. TRUE COPY	OF	PETITION DATED 21.09.2013.
EXHIBIT P15. TRUE COPY VILLAGE OF	OF FIC	THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2013 ISSUED BY THE ER.
EXHIBIT P16. TRUE COPY	OF	REPRESENTATION DATED 29.09.2013.
EXHIBIT P17. TRUE COPY	OF	ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE DATED 29.07.2013.

/TRUE COPY/

nkm

P.S. TO JUDGE.

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶19

¶20

W.P.(c) No.24013 OF 2013

¶21

¶22

Dated this the 21^st day of October, 2013

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The prayers are in the following terms :

¶25

“i) to call for the records leading to Ext.P15 and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari.

¶26

ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to consider the objection raised by the petitioner in Ext.P10 and Ext.P12 and not to dispossess the petitioner from Ext.P1 property until a decision is taken in Ext.P10 and Ext.P12 in accordance with law.

¶27

Iii) to direct 5^th respondent to conduct an enquiry into the objections raised in Ext.P14 by the petitioner and not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner till then.

¶28

iv) to declare that action initiated by respondent in the form of Ext.P15 without issuing a prior notice as contemplated under the Land Conservancy Act is illegal

¶29

and

¶30

v) To pass such other reliefs this Hon'ble

¶31

W.P.(C)No.24013/2013

¶32

¶33

Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶34

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner became the owner of the property covered by Ext. P1 sale deed executed before the SRO, Angamaly. Ext. P2 is the prior deed in respect of the said property, as per which, land having an extent of 1.49 acres in the concerned survey number came to her hands. It is stated that ever since then the petitioner is enjoying the same, also satisfying land tax, as reflected from Exts. P3 and P4. Ext. P5 is the possession certificate issued by the concerned Village Officer, while Ext. P6 is the encumbrance free certificate issued by the Registering Authority. It is stated that mutation in respect of the property was already effected and that the property was subsequently mortgaged in connection with a loan availed by the petitioner from a Service Co-operative Bank as evident from Ext. P8 mortgage deed. It is stated that the loan has already been satisfied by the petitioner. The property has been planted

¶35

with rubber as well as plantain and it was while so, that the sixth respondent herein issued Ext.P15 prohibitory order dated 28.09.2013

¶36

W.P.(C)No.24013/2013 3

¶37

alleging that the petitioner has encroached into the property in Resurvey No. 149/2 of Block No. I of Karukutty Village and has excavated earth therefrom. Though the petitioner tried to explain the position by submitting Ext.P16, the same did not turn to be fruitful and hence the writ petition.

¶38

The learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits on instructions that, the prohibitory order had been issued in respect of the property comprised in Resurvey No. 149/2 of Karukutty Village, which according to the 6^th respondent is different from the property being enjoyed by the petitioner, on the strength of Exts.P1 to P8 as mentioned above. Reference is made to the survey number shown in the relevant title deeds and also the resurvey numbers shown in Ext.P4 and other relevant documents wherein the resurvey number has been shown as 129/1.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts with reference to the materials on record that the resurvey number assigned to the petitioner after resurvey in respect of the earlier survey No. 649/1-30 is 129/1 and that this is the only property having a total extent of 1.49

¶40

W.P.(C)No.24013/2013

¶41

¶42

acres, owned, possessed and enjoyed by the petitioner. The petitioner has neither encroached into any Government Puramboke nor has she any property comprised in Survey No. 149/2. Since the respondents do not have a case that part of the property comprised in Resurvey No. 129/1 owned, possessed and enjoyed by the petitioner is forming part of any Government Purmaboke, it has to be made clear that there cannot be any interference in respect of the enjoyment of the property by the petitioner, in so far as the same is comprised in Resurvey No. 129/1. In the said circumstances, the respondents are set at liberty to proceed with the Government Purmboke, if any, comprised in Resurvey No. 149/2. However, there shall not be any interference with respect to the ownership, possession and enjoyment by the petitioner in so far as the same is comprised in Resurvey No. 129/1. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to Ext.P10 and P12 filed before the third respondent against Ext.P15 proceedings, an interim order of stay has already been granted by the third respondent. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that a vigilance enquiry has already been ordered and that the matter is being pursued accordingly.

¶43

W.P.(C)No.24013/2013

¶44

¶45

In the said circumstances, there will be a direction to the third respondent to consider Exts.P10 and P12 and take necessary steps to finalise the issue involved therein with proper notice to the petitioner and also after conducting spot inspection by any competent/authorised officer and further after effecting measurement of the property concerned, if so necessitated.

¶46

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶47

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶48

sv.

¶49

W.P.(C)No.24013/2013 6

Mary Sebastian v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mary Sebastian v. 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

K.Dasan Vs Inspector General (Registration)

Prashob Sugathan Vs the Passport Officer

M.R.Bhaskaran Vaidyar Vs State of Kerala

G.K.Granites Ltd. Vs Bharath Petroleum Company

S.Mohankumar Vs Taluk Supply Officer, Kunnathoor

Ramesan.v.C Vs the Union of India