Dismissed

T Gopinatha Menon v. Madakkathara Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC19 Nov 2015WP(C)/30485/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a petitioner challenging the Ombudsman's order rejecting his second complaint. The Court held that the petitioner exhibited no bona fides, using public resources experimentally to wreak vengeance via inconsistent pleas regarding land encroachment, and imposed costs.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the State Treasury if not already paid within three months.

T Gopinatha Menon Vs Madakkathara Grama… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/28TH KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 30485 of 2012 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

T. GOPINATHA MENON, AGED 73 YEARS, S/O.KUNJUNNY, THATTATTU HOUSE, CHELLIPPADAM, P.O.MADAKATHRA, THRISSUR-680651.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.YASH THOMAS MANNULLY SRI.P.A.GIREESH KUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. MADAKKATHARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KURICHIKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN-680028 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY, MADAKAKATHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KURICHIKARA P.O. THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680028.

¶12

3. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-696501, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

4. BENNY MATHEW M.R. FLAT NO.4C, NAVANI PRINCESS, BENNET ROAD, THRISSUR-680020.

¶14

R4 BY ADV. SRI.SINU.G.NATH R1-R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.ANIL KUMAR R1-R2 BY ADV. SMT.PREETHI K.PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 30485 of 2012 (I)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN OP 306 OF 2011.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSET REGISTER OF CHELLIPADAM MADAKKATHARA ROAD.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANNUTHY POLICE STATION DT.1012-2009.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.21-12-2009 GIVEN TO THE PRESIDENT, MADAKKATHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24-8-2011 IN OP 306/2011.

¶24

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.17-1-2012 IN CMP 131/2011 IN OP 306/2011.

¶25

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT.20-7-2012 BY TALUK SURVEYOR, THRISSUR.

¶26

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NUMBERED 6(2) DT.13-82012 BY MADAKKATHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT COUNCIL.

¶27

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE IA 132 OF 2012 IN OP 306/2011. EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.31-10-2012 IN IA 132/12

¶28

EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION DT.23.12.09 UNDER RTI ACT GIVEN BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MADAKKATHARA.

¶29

EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF CHELLIPADAM MADAKAKATHARA ROAD AND THE ENCROACHMENT ACTIVITIES DONE BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶30

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

¶31

EXT.R4(A)-TRUE COPY OF DECREE & JUDGMENT IN OS 2782/2009 OF PRL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR.

¶32

EXT.R4(B)-TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT & JUDGMENT IN OS 2782/2009 OF PRL.MUNSIFF'S COURT, THRISSUR.

¶33

EXT.R4(C)- TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION TO CORRECT MISTAKE IN ASSET REGISTER.

OKB

True copy

P.A. to Judge

K.HARILAL, J.

W.P.(C) No.30485 of 2012

¶39

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2015.

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

The petitioner approached the Ombudsman for

¶42

Local Self Government Institutions stating that the 4^th respondent has encroached a portion of puramboke property forming part of Chellipadam Madakkathara Road. Believing the averments in the petition, the Ombudsman passed Ext.P6 order directing the 2^nd respondent to request the Tahsildar to arrange measurement of the property with the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor and the Village Officer. The Taluk Surveyor was also directed to measure the property, after giving notice to all the parties, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In compliance with the said direction, the property was measured to find out the alleged encroachment by the Surveyor and the Village Officer, as directed by the Ombudsman. The Surveyor filed

¶43

WP(C).30485/12 :2:

¶44

Ext.P7 report stating that the disputed property has been measured on the basis of the title deed in favour of the 4^th respondent and found that no encroachment had been made by the 4^th respondent. It is also stated that the 4^th respondent is in possession of a lesser extent of property than the extent of property described in his title deed i.e., as per the title deed, the 4^th respondent is having 0.2428 Hectares of property; but on measurement, he was found in possession of only 0.2214 Hectares. The Surveyor submitted Ext.P7 report to the 1^st respondent Panchayat and the Panchayat Committee considered the report in detail and took Ext.P8 resolution. The Panchayat Committee, after elaborate discussions, accepted the said report specifically on a finding that there is no puramboke pathway on the western side of the property owned and possessed by the 4^th respondent. Considering the fact that the Surveyor made a report that no encroachment has been made by the 4^th respondent, the Panchayat Committee dropped the entire proceedings against the 4^th respondent.

¶45

WP(C).30485/12 :3:

¶46

Dissatisfied with Ext.P8 resolution of the Panchayat Committee, again, the petitioner approached the Ombudsman by filing another I.A.No.132/2012 in O.P.No.306/2011 stating that the title deed, by which the 4^th respondent got possession and enjoyment of the property, is fabricated one created for taking possession of the Panchayat puramboke land unlawfully. Virtually, in the second round, he has taken a stand which was totally inconsistent with his earlier stand when he approached the Ombudsman at first. In short, the petitioner has no consistent case against the 4^th respondent and after considering the fresh plea as regards the encroachment, the Ombudsman rejected the petition on a finding that the Ombudsman is not an appellate forum, provided under law.This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 order passed by the Ombudsman.

¶47

Heard The learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶48

Going by the sequence of events from the very

¶49

beginning, it is seen that, firstly, the petitioner approached the Ombudsman stating that the 4^th

¶50

WP(C).30485/12 :4:

¶51

respondent has encroached the puramboke land and he took the possession of the said land unlawfully. Believing his statement, the Ombudsman passed an order directing the Panchayat to measure the property using the service of Taluk Surveyor and Village Officer. In compliance with that order the Taluk Surveyor measured the property and found that the 4^th respondent is not in possession of excess land and, more particularly, he was in possession of a lesser extent of land than the extent of property described in his title deeds. Considering the said fact the Panchayat Committee passed Ext.P8 resolution dropping the proceedings on the finding that the 4^th respondent is not in possession of any excess land.

¶52

The petitioner was not satisfied with the said order. He again approached the Ombudsman with another plea stating that the 4^th respondent created the title deeds fraudulently with an intent to take the possession of the puramboke land unlawfully; but such a contention was not raised when the petitioner has approached the Ombudsman at the first time.

¶53

WP(C).30485/12 :5:

¶54

In short, the petitioner has no consistent case and he has filed various petitions with different pleas, one after another, before different Forums, by way of experimental exercise, to wreak vengeance against the 4^th respondent. Put it differently, he has been proceeding against the 4^th respondent in retaliation of the reasons best known to him alone and public money and the service of public servants were being misused for the same without any bona fides. Hence he is liable to pay expenses for the service of the public servants, which he has utilised unnecessarily. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- and the Registry is directed to take steps to

¶55

realise the cost, if the petitioner has not paid the cost within three months from today.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

K. HARILAL, JUDGE

¶58

Nan/okb.

T Gopinatha Menon v. Madakkathara Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T Gopinatha Menon v. Madakkathara Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nanminda Grama Panchayath Vs Kerala State Human Right Commission

Vinod Kumara U Vs State of Kerala

Narayana Menon Vs State of Kerala

Sareesh Vs the District Collector, Kannur

St. Francis Assissi Minor Seminary Vs State of Kerala

Neena Jose Vs State of Kerala