Dismissed

Thankamma Gopalan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC3 Jun 2014WP(C)/5056/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged a notice for eviction of land in possession of the petitioner, claimed to be part of the Periyar Valley Irrigation Project. The petitioner asserted 50-year residence but admitted lack of title. The single-judge Bench observed that acquired land is treated as Government property and dismisses the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner is not entitled to any relief as he has no title in respect of the acquired property.

Thankamma Gopalan Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

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

¶5

WP(C).No. 5056 of 2014 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. THANKAMMA GOPALAN, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.GOPALAN, SHAPPUMTHAZATH HOUSE, BHOOTHATHANKETTU P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2. P.N. KUNJAPPAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, PARACHALIL HOUSE, BHOOTHATHANKETTU P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

3. KOCHUKUTTY,

¶10

W/O. LATE KANNAPPAN, ATTAKKILIYIL HOUSE, BHOOTHATHANKETTU P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

4. GIREESH, S/O. LATE LAKSHMIKUTTY,

¶12

GIRIJALAYAM, BHOOTHATHANKETTU P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶13

5. KANNAN, S/O. KARUMBAN,

¶14

PARAPPURATHKUDI, BHOOTHATHANKETTU P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶15

6. E.N. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, ERUMALA VEEDU, BHOOTHATHANKETTU P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶16

BY ADVS.SRI.A.X.VARGHESE, SRI.A.V.JOJO.

¶17

RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶19

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, (IRRIGATION & ADMINISTRATION), PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, OPPOSITE MUSEUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 001.

¶20

WP(C).No. 5056 of 2014 (F)

¶21

3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM- 682 030.

¶22

4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PERIYAR VALLY IRRIGATION PROJECT, SUB DIVISION NO.1, BHOOTHATHANKETTU, 686 681.

¶23

5. THE TAHSILDAR,

¶24

TALUK OFFICE, KOTHAMANGALAM- 686 691.

¶25

BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.C. VINCENT.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

rs.

¶28

WP(C).No. 5056 of 2014 (F)

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶31

EXHIBIT P1 TYPED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03-10-2011 IN O.P. NO. 27946/2001.

¶32

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 13-12-2001.

¶33

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 05-02-2014.

¶34

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF THE INSPECTION REPORT OF THE DAM SAFETY REVIEW PANEL OBTAINED UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶35

EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH.

¶36

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

rs.

**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.P.C.No.5056 of 2014

¶41

Dated this the 3^rd day of June 2014

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

Petitioner challenges Ext.P3 notice issued by the 4^th respondent calling upon him to surrender possession of the

¶44

land in his possession, which according to the 4^th respondent, is forming part of Periyar Valley Irrigation Project. Notice discloses that the said land is acquired for

¶45

the purpose of Periyar Valley Project and the petitioner is in unauthorised occupation of the said land.

¶46

According to the petitioner, he and his predecessors were residing in the said property for the last 50 years. But he does not have a case that he has title to the aforesaid property.

¶47

The property is acquired for the purpose of Government and it shall always be treated as Government puramboke land. Neither the petitioner nor any other person has any title to the property. Under these

¶48

W.P.C.No.5056/2014

¶49

¶50

circumstances, 4^th respondent is entitled to demand eviction of the petitioner from the said premises. If the petitioner has any legal grievance in respect of the aforesaid notice, he can always submit his objection to the 4^th respondent who shall consider the same in accordance with the procedure prescribed and pass appropriate orders.

¶51

In the result, the petitioner, having no title in respect of the property, is not entitled to seek any relief in the matter. This writ petition is dismissed with the above observations.

¶52

(sd/-)

¶53

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

¶54

jsr

Thankamma Gopalan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thankamma Gopalan 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

Kerala Bottled Water Manufactures Association Vs the Secretary, Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies

P.D.Saji Vs the Tahsildar

John Philip Vs the State of Kerala

Parameswaran Vs Jaco

The Tattamangalam Service Co-Operative Bank Vs State of Kerala

K D Martin Vs the Director of Mining and Geology