The court dismissed a writ petition concerning alleged encroachment on government land. It held that disputes over land claims between the petitioner and a private third respondent are civil matters not suitable for writ jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
TUESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/11TH BHADRA, 1936
WP(C).No. 12589 of 2014 (W)
PETITIONER:
MATHEW JOSEPH AGED 64 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH, RESIDING AT PUTHIYA PARAMBATH HOUSE MEENACHIL TALUK, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE KOTTAYAMDISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.C.K.SREEJITH
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM - 686 002.
2. THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT -686 575.
3. BINS ABRAHAM S/O.ABRAHAM, MALIYEKKAL, ARUVITHURA KOTTAYAMDIST. 686 122.
R3 BY ADV. SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY R3 BY ADV. SMT.P.G.LIPSY GASPER R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER: SRI JOSEPH GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 12589 of 2014 (W)
2
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :
EXT.P-1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED REGISTERED DOCUMENT NO.20/1972 OF ERATTUPETTA SUB REGISTRAR
EXT.P-2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER OF KERALA.
EXT.P-3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF SECRETARY OF KERALA.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
True Copy/
P A to Judge
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
========================= W.P(C).No. 12589 of 2014 W
============================ Dated this the 02nd day of September, 2014
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has moved the revenue officials alleging that the third respondent has encroached upon Government puramboke land. Petitioner approached this court on account of inaction on the part of the official respondents to take action against the third respondent. The third respondent has filed counter affidavit. The third respondent also produced Exts.R3C and R3D. Exts.R3C and R3D appears to have been taken on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner. Exts.R3C and R3D do not indicate that the third respondent has encroached upon any government land. Petitioner, however points out that the third respondent is in possession of excess land. According to the petitioner, excess land belongs to him.
W.P(C).No.12589 of 2014
2
based on the complaint of the petitioner, nothing further survives
in the writ petition.
Writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE.
Sbna/03/09/14
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can invoke powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to resolve a disputed claim of encroachment on government land between private individuals.
Whether the writ court can adjudicate a civil dispute regarding excess land possession arising out of government puramboke.
Whether the petition survives after action was taken on the basis of the petitioner's complaint.
MATHEW JOSEPH
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM
THE TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, PALA
BINS ABRAHAM
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
