Allowed

Alex George v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollamanad

Kerala HC3 Jun 2014WP(C)/21918/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought permission to clear his property for construction. An order refusing permission due to an ongoing investigation involving a skeletal discovery was challenged. The High Court quashed the refusal order and directed permission for soil removal subject to police presence.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P2 (declining order) quashed; Petitioner directed to grant permission for soil removal with police presence.

Alex George Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollamanad — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2014/13TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 21918 of 2013 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ALEX GEORGE, 55 YEARS, MULLAMKOTTU, KIZHAKKATHIL VEEDU, CHERUMANGADU, PUTHUR, KOTTARAKARA.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SYAM J.SAM.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM-691 001.

¶11

2. THE TALUK TAHSILDAR, KOTTARAKARA TALUK, KOTTARAKARA-691 001.

¶12

3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKARA-691 001.

¶13

4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RURAL, KOTTARAKARA-691 001.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. JIBU .P.THOMAS.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Prv.

¶17

W.P.(C).NO.21918/2013 - L:

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT B2 32512/12 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DT.23-7-2013.

¶22

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF MUNSIFF COURT, KOTTARAKARA IN I.A 4007/2012 IN O.S 722/2012.

¶23

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT:

¶24

EXHIBIT R3(a): THE COPY OF THE PLAN NO.26/14 PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶29

W.P.(C) No. 21918 of 2013

¶30

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2014

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

The petitioner along with his brother is owning property having an extent of 30.85 Ares in block No.10 of Puthur Village, Kottarakara Taluk. As they decided to construct a multi-storied shopping complex in their property, they obtained consent from the statutory authorities under due process of law. They have entered into contract with a construction company at Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner approached the 1^st respondent for permission. As no effective action was taken by the 1^st respondent, the petitioner approached this Court with WP(C) No. 14333/2013, wherein this Court directed the 1^st respondent to expedite the representation and pass appropriate orders. However, an order was made by the 1^st respondent declining the petitioner's prayer stating that some investigation process

¶33

..2..

¶34

W.P.(C) No. 21918 of 2013

¶35

is going on as an old human skeleton was recovered from the well near the petitioner's property. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶36

The respondent State has filed a detailed counter affidavit alleging that the investigation in the crime is not over and therefore, it may not be proper to alter the existing state of affairs of the petitioner's property till the investigation is over.

¶37

Arguments have been heard.

¶38

This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2013. He has complied with all the procedure formalities for the construction of shopping complex. The property is uninhabited. The respondent has no case that either the petitioner or his brother was involved in any crime. The stand taken by the respondents that if the property is reclaimed and a construction is made, the same would affect the investigation, is not acceptable.

¶39

Therefore, Ext.P2 is quashed.

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 21918 of 2013

¶41

..3..

¶42

The 1^st respondent is directed to grant permission to remove soil from the petitioner's property as per Ext.P3.

¶43

It is hereby made clear that the clearance of the property shall be intimated to the Station House Officer concerned; and it shall be open to the Station House Officer to be present at the time of clearance of the property.

¶44

It is also hereby made clear that the petitioner shall cooperate with the so called investigation now pending.

¶45

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶46

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶47

bka/-

Alex George v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollamanad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alex George v. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kollamanad

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

Ajikumar.T. Vs Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kalvakulam Road Residents Welfare Association Vs State of Kerala

G.Sunilkumar Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Kunhikanaran Vs Edacherry Co-Operative Rural Housing Society Ltd.

Manafudeen Vs the Government of Kerala

Beeran Vs Ambalavayal Panchayat