Dismissed

K.K.Balakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Kerala HC7 Oct 2014WP(C)/21627/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala closed two writ petitions regarding disputed property title. The court held that the matter should be adjudicated in existing proceedings under DBP No. 116 of 2012 to avoid duplication and clogging judicial processes, affirming the earlier interim order maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

WP(C) No. 21627 of 2013 closed; status quo and measurement direction affirmed; WP(C) No. 23778 of 2014 disposed of with police enforcement direction.

K.K.Balakrishnan Vs Cochin Devaswom Board — Partition | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/15TH ASWINA, 1936

¶7

WP(C).No. 21627 of 2013 (C)

¶8

PETITIONER :

¶9

K.K.BALAKRISHNAN AGED 57 YEARS S/O. S.S.KRISHNA WARIYAR(LATE) RESIDING AT "KRISHNA KRIPA", PALLITHAZHAM MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI (SR.) SRI.SAJU.S.A SMT.MEENA.A. SRI.K.C.KIRAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EAST ROUND THRISSUR-680001.

¶13

SPECIAL TAHSILDAR AND EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE OFFICE OF SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD LC UNIT, THRISSUR-680 001.

¶14

KARIKODE DEVASWOM

¶15

REPRESENTED BY JOINT DEVASWOM OFFICER POST KUREEKKAD, THIRUVAMKULAM ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 305.

¶16

R1 & 3 BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA MENON, SC, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-10-2014 ALONG WITH WPC 23778/2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 21627 of 2013 (C)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1 : COPY OF THE PATTAYAM ISSUED BY DIWAN PESHKAR IN FAVOUR OF SANKARAN GOVINDA WARIYAR DTD.28TH MIDHUNAM 1120 ME.

¶22

P2 : COPY OF THE PARTITION DEED DTD.26.10.1970.

¶23

P3 : COPY OF THE STATEMENT SHOWING THE DETAILS WITH RESPECT TO THE PURCHASE MADE BY THE DIFFERENT ALLOTTEES THROUGH LAND TRIBUNAL.

¶24

P4 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD.12.8.2013 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

P5 : COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE NOTICE ON 19.8.2013 BY THE PETITIONER.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

ks.

TRUE COPY

P.S. TO JUDGE

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN &

¶32

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ.

¶33

============================== W.P.(C)Nos. 21627 of 2013 & 23778 of 2014

¶34

============================== Dated this the 7^th day of October, 2014

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

¶37

These writ petitions are filed by one K.K.Balakrishnan. He claims that he is a sharer of an item of property over which there is a disputed title as reflected in the proceedings in DBP No.116 of 2012, which was registered on the basis of a complaint by Sri. A.A.Gopalakrishnan. It contains a report of the Ombudsman for the Travancore-Cochin Devaswom Boards as well. The stand taken by the State Revenue is evident in those proceedings. Under such circumstances, any person having any objection or grievance about the proceedings in that case has to express his objection in such

¶38

WPC 21627/13 & 23778/14 2

¶39

proceedings. We may also note that K.K.Balakrishnan, who has instituted the captioned writ petitions, has himself sworn to an affidavit in relation to matters in DBP No. 116 of 2012. We are, therefore, of the firm view that duplication of the proceedings would clog the judicial process and such multifarious proceedings are not necessary when reliefs can be sought for from DBP No. 116 of 2012. The stand taken by the Cochin Devaswom Board and the State Government authorities is that measurements were only for the purpose of determining the extent and no dispossession will be done except in accordance with the decision that would be rendered in DBP No.116 of 2012. Eight persons mentioned in paragraph 5 of the affidavit sworn to by the Junior Superintendent, Land Reforms Section, Collectorate, Ernakulam, on 2^nd July 2012 in DBP No.116 of 2012 were issued notices from those proceedings. Therefore, those persons as well as persons claiming under or along with them have to participate, if they need so, in the proceedings in DBP No.116 of 2012 for redressal of their grievances or

¶40

WPC 21627/13 & 23778/14 3

¶41

objections.

¶42

In the result, it is ordered as under:

¶43

i) W.P.(C)No.21627 of 2013 will stand closed recording

¶44

the submission that no dispossession will be effected without further orders in DBP No. 116 of 2012 or as may be further directed in that case. The direction given through the interim orders in W.P.(C) No.21627 of 2013 that status quo shall be maintained and measurements can be taken would stand affirmed hereby.

¶45

ii)W.P.(C)No.23778 of 2014 is ordered directing that the police will ensure that law and order is maintained and any apprehension or report of cognizable offence is dealt with in accordance with law.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH JUDGE

ks.

True copy

P.S.To Judge

WPC 21627/13 & 23778/14 4

K.K.Balakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Balakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board

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

Abdul Hakkim Vs the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd.

D.Madhavan Nair Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Sakkariya Vs K.K.Manikantan and Another

Babitha Sam Vs State of Kerala

The Commandant Officer Vs K.N. Janardhanan

State Environment Protection Council Vs the State of Kerala