Disposed

M.R.Sukumaran v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC23 Jun 2015WP(C)/3790/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged failure of municipality and Taluk Surveyor to measure road and identify illegal construction. Court directed respondents 3 and 4 to effect proper measurement based on records and title deeds. They must submit a plan to the municipality within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondents 3 and 4 to effect proper measurement on basis of available records and title deeds and make plans available to Respondent 2 within two months.

M.R.Sukumaran Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2015/2ND ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 3790 of 2015 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

------------------

¶8

M.R.SUKUMARAN, AGED 64 YEARS, S/O.RAGHAVAN, RESIDING AT MADATHIL HOUSE, PERUMPADANNA NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 513.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

----------------------

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT ANNEX, TRIVANDRUM - 695001.

¶13

2. PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN CODE - 683 513 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF SURVEYS SURVEYS OFFICE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM COCHIN - 682 030.

¶15

4. TALUK SURVEYOR TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 513.

¶16

5. GEORGE MATHEW

¶17

S/O. PAPPU, RESIDING AT MECHERY HOUSE, PERUMPADDANNA NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -683513.

¶18

R1,R3, & R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR R2 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.AJITH PRAKASH R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.VISWANATHAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL N.SHENOI

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-06-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

¶21

WP(C).No. 3790 of 2015 (W)

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶24

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.TP 5936/10 DT. 30.1.12 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY TO GOERGE MECHERY, MECHERY HOUSE, PERUMBADANNA.

¶25

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DR. 24.1.12 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITI ONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY PARAVUR MUNICIPALITY.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶31

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶32

W.P(C) No. 3790 of 2015

¶33

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶34

Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2015

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Alleging that though the respondent municipality has ordered

¶37

to measure the road which is vested with the municipality, no steps have been taken by the municipality and the Taluk Surveyor to measure the property and to identify the alleged illegal construction effected by the 5^th respondent trespassing into the road, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶38

The petitioner is aggrieved by the illegal attempt on the part of the 5^th respondent to construct a compound wall after trespassing into the public pathway on the basis of a permit, for constructing a compound wall obtained from the Paravur municipality. When the illegal attempt was revealed, the petitioner lodged a complaint before

¶39

the respondent municipality. Pursuant to the complaint, the

¶40

municipality issued Ext.P1 order and thereby kept the permit issued

¶41

-:2:-

¶42

WP(C)3790/15

¶43

in favour of the 5^th respondent in abeyance and steps have been taken

¶44

to measure the property through the Taluk Surveyor in the presence of Municipal Engineer. However, the respondents have not taken any action. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader, the learned standing counsel for the respondent municipality and learned counsel for the 5^th respondent in the matter.

¶46

The learned standing counsel for the respondent municipality inviting my attention to paragraph (5) of the counter affidavit filed by them submitted that the 5^th respondent on 28.6.2012 has informed the municipality that he should submit the plan after measuring the property with the Taluk surveyor in the presence of a commissioner to be deputed by the Munsiff's Court on moving an commission application by him. However, till date he has not submitted any such report from the Taluk Surveyor as stated.

¶47

-:3:-

¶48

WP(C)3790/15

¶49

The pendency of the civil suit will not stand in the way of

¶50

the revenue authorities in measuring the property to ascertain whether there is illegal encroachment upon the road.

¶51

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 3 and 4 to effect a proper measurement on the basis of the available records and title deeds of the contesting parties and to make available a plan to the respondent municipality within a period

¶52

of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶55

krj

M.R.Sukumaran v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.R.Sukumaran 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhilash.v. Vs Kozhikode Corporation

St.Mary'S English Medium School Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Subramanian Vs the Oorngattiri Grama Panchayath

The St.Joseph'S Hospital Trust Vs Kerala University of Health & Allied Sci

Mullan Sulaiman Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Indus Ind Bank Ltd. Vs Regional Transport Officer