Disposed

N.v.Suhara v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Jun 2014WP(C)/9954/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a District Collector's order. The court upheld the order directing a survey and restoration of utilities as interim, subject to pending civil suit results, and ordered final orders within three weeks while maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Directed District Collector to pass final orders within three weeks; status quo maintained until then.

N.v.Suhara Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/14TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 9954 of 2014 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

N.V.SUHARA, AGED 50 YEARS, W/O.K.V.SAIDUMUHAMMED, PULIYILANGADY, ANAKKAYAM AMSOM, DESOM, ANAKKAYAM P.O. ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHIBILI NAHA SRI.P.E.SAJAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM.

¶12

3. ALUNGAL ASYA,AGED 55,

¶13

D/O. MUHAMMED, PULIYILANGADY, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, ANAKKAYAM AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

4. RAFEEK, S/O. ALUNGAL ASYA,

¶15

AGED 25 YEARS, PULIYILANGADY, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, ANAKKAYAM AMSOM DESOM, ERNAD TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶16

5. ANAKKAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ANAKKAYAM P.O. MALPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

R1 & 2 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.SAJAN JAMES R3 & 4 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.HABEEB

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

WP(C).No. 9954 of 2014 (T)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶23

EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.99/2012 PENDING BEFORE THE HONOURABEL MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI.

¶24

EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER ISSUED ON 7/3/2012.

¶25

EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE PURCHASE CERTIFICATE/PATTAYAM ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶26

EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 30/4/2010.

¶27

EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN EXT.P1 SUIT ON 9/4/2012.

¶28

EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA 762/2012 IN OS NO.97/2012 DATED 13/4/2012.

¶29

EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 25/1/2012.

¶30

EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADDL.TAHSILDAR ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH DATED 15/1/2013.

¶31

EXHIBIT P9. TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT AND PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER

¶32

EXHIBIT P10. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CA. 5/2014 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/2ND RESPONDENT ON 17/3/2014.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

A.M. Shaffique, J.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

¶40

W.P(C) No. 9954 of 2014

¶41

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 4^th day of June, 2014.

¶42

Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext. P10, an order passed by the District Collector on the basis of a complaint given by the 3^rd respondent. According to the petitioner, the Panchayat has not trespassed into any portion of the property belonging to the 3^rd respondent whereas it was only concreting public road, which is already in existence.

¶43

The District Collector by the impugned order, has directed the Tahsildar and the District Survey Superintendent to survey the property having an extent of four cents which was purportedly belonging to the 3^rd respondent and thereafter a final decision is to be taken in the matter. Further directions were issued to the Grama Panchayat to restore electricity and water connection and also to construct steps on the eastern side of the 3^rd respondent's property to enable her to enter into her house. This, according to the District Collector, should be subject to any orders that might be passed by the court.

¶44

The petitioner submits that already an injunction suit has been filed by the petitioner before the Munsiff's Court, Manjeri and an order of status quo has been passed as Ext. P6. The suit was filed for an injunction to restrain

¶45

-: 2 :-

¶46

the 3^rd respondent from interfering with or encroaching into the pathway in question.

¶47

Having regard to the aforesaid factual situation and on a perusal of Ext. P10 order, it is clear that the District Collector had only passed an interim order. Since there is complaint by a person with reference to the land being trespassed by another person, there is nothing wrong in the District Collector calling upon the revenue authorities and the Survey Department to conduct a measurement of the property. After such consideration and after hearing affected parties, it is always open for the District Collector to pass appropriate orders. Of course, such orders would be subject to the result of any civil suit pending before any court.

¶48

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the District Collector to pass final orders pursuant to Ext. P10 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and until such time, status quo shall be maintained.

¶49

Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.

¶50

Tds/

N.v.Suhara v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.v.Suhara 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

Parameswaran Vs Jaco

The Tattamangalam Service Co-Operative Bank Vs State of Kerala

Thankamma Gopalan Vs State of Kerala

Muneer N K Vs the Secretary

Anilkumar C.R Vs University of Calicut

Bava Vs State of Kerala