Allowed

Sarasamma v. District Collector

Kerala HC4 Mar 2015WP(C)/4178/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought assignment of 1.41 acres of puramboke land possessed since 1956 for housing. Authorities rejected request for entire area, reserving 78 sq.mt for road widening. High Court quashed rejection order and directed tahsildar to assign balance 63 sq.mt within two months.

What did the court decide?

2nd respondent directed to assign balance 63 sq.mt of puramboke land to petitioner within 2 months, excluding 78 sq.mt required for road.

Sarasamma Vs District Collector — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/13TH PHALGUNA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 4178 of 2010 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SARASAMMA

¶8

AGED 63 YEARS, 'SARASWATHI BHAVANAM', CHERUKUNNAM, KALLUMALA.P.O THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.THAMBAN

¶10

SRI.R.REJI

¶11

SRI.B.BIPIN

¶12

SMT.THARA THAMBAN

¶13

RESPONDENT(S):

¶14

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, ALAPPUZHA.

¶15

2. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MAVELIKKARA.

¶16

3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA.

¶17

BY ADV. GOVT. PLEADER ADV. SRI. P.V. ELIAS

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-032015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

AMG

W.P (c) No.4178/2010

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶23

EXT- P1-	TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD DATED 27-07-1998 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA.
EXT- P2-	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10-05-1999 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S AUNT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT- P3-	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25-11-2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT- P4-	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 06-12-2007 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THEKKEKARA BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT- P5-	TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 27-11-2007.
EXT- P6-	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 25-11-2008 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT- P7-	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 08-05-2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER'S SUTHARYA KERALAM PROGRAMME.
EXT- P8-	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 29-06-2009 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT- P9-	TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER DATED 18-07-2009 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL SECRETARY OF CHIEF MINISTER'S PUBLIC GRIEVANCE CELL.
EXT- P10-	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20-07-2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THEKKEKARA.
EXT- P11-	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16-02-2009 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT- P12-	TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE No.B1:9237/2008 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT- P13-	TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION LETTER DATED 07-01-2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶24

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

True copy

P.A. To Judge

AMG

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶30

W.P.(c) No. 4178 OF 2010-V

¶31

DATED THIS THE 4^th DAY OF MARCH, 2015.

¶32

J U D G M E N T

¶33

Petitioner is a lady aged 63 years at the time of filing this writ petition. She is approaching this court aggrieved by the rejection of her application for assignment of 1.41 Ares of puramboke land comprised in Re-Sy No.45 (old Sy. No.120/5B) of Block No.9 of Thekkekara Village in Alappuzha District. According to the petitioner, the property came into possession of her predecessors in interest long back and from 1956 onwards the predecessors were paying 'prohibitory' tax in respect of the said property in the file LC No.296/56. Possession of the property devolved upon the petitioner about 20 years back. The petitioner is residing in a hut situated within the said property. It is pointed out that certain adjacent properties owned by others were already assigned by the Government. The petitioner approached the 2^nd respondent in Ext.P2 application as early as in the year 1999. But no action was

¶34

W.P.(c) No. 4178/2010

¶35

-2-

¶36

taken based on the said application for quite a long time. Therefore the petitioner submitted Ext.P3 application in the proper format seeking assignment of the land, in the year 2007. The 2^nd respondent had taken steps to obtain report from the Village Officer concerned. Exhibit P4 report and Ext.P5 mahazer submitted by the 3^rd respondent would indicate that the petitioner is in possession of the property in question since the last more than 18 years and that she is residing in the said property in a building bearing No.2/171. Despite receipt of Exts.P4 & P5 reports and mahazer, the 2^nd respondent has not proceeded further the matter. Hence the petitioner approached the 2^nd respondent in Ext.P6 representation. Still there was no response from the side of the 2^nd respondent. Therefore the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation before the hon'ble Chief Minister in the “Sutharya Keralam” programme. It is evident from Ext.P8 that on the basis of Ext.P7 representation the Government have called for a report from the 1^st respondent. In Ext.P8 it was reported by the 1^st respondent

¶37

W.P.(c) No. 4178/2010

¶38

-3-

¶39

that the property having an extent of 1.41 Ares include 78 Sq.Mtrs. of road margin which is required for widening of the road. However it is stated that the 2^nd respondent had reported that action is being pursued for assigned of the balance extent of 63 Sq.Mtrs. It is revealed that, eventhough report was submitted to the 1^st respondent that proceedings is pursued for assignment of 63 Sq.Mtrs. of land, the 2^nd respondent had requested the 3^rd respondent through Ext.P10 letter to prepare documents for assignment of road puramboke land in the possession of the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent had also called for a report from the Executive Engineer of the PWD (Roads Division) seeking opinion about assignment of 78 Sq.Mtrs. road puramboke land in favour of the petitioner. Ultimately the 2^nd respondent had issued Ext.P13 letter to the petitioner informing that the application of the petitioner for assignment of 78 Sq.Mtrs. puramboke land was rejected because the authorities of the PWD had objected assignment of any road puramboke or road margin. It is

¶40

W.P.(c) No. 4178/2010

¶41

-4-

¶42

challenging Ext.P13, this writ petition is filed. Inter alia the petitioner is seeking direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to re-consider Ext.P3 application and to pass appropriate orders thereon.

¶43

Contention of the petitioner mainly based on Ext.P3 application and the report and mahazer submitted by the 3^rd respondent, as per Exts.P4 & P5. It is evident from Exts.P3, P4 & P5 that the petitioner is in possession of 1.41 Ares of property wherein she is residing in a building bearing No.2/171. From Ext.P8 report submitted by the 1^st respondent it is revealed that the 2^nd respondent had reported that out of the total extent of 1.41 Ares sought to be assigned, an extent of 78 Sq.Mtrs. is road margin, which is required for expansion of the road. In Ext.P8 it is categorically stated that the 2^nd respondent had reported that action is being pursued for assignment of the balance extent of 63 Sq.Mtrs. But it is pertinent to note that thereafter the 2^nd respondent had pursued further proceedings as if the petitioner is seeking assignment of 78

¶44

W.P.(c) No. 4178/2010

¶45

-5-

¶46

Sq.Mtrs. of road puramboke and that the said request cannot be acceded to in view of the objections raised by the authorities of the PWD.

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, even if there is any objection for assignment of 78 Sq.Mtrs. of road puramboke (road margin) the 2^nd respondent has to consider assignment of the balance extent of 63 Sq.Mtrs. in view of Exts.P4 & P5 report. This court is of the considered opinion that contention in this respect deserves merit. It is for the 2^nd respondent to consider whether the balance extent of property in the possession of the petitioner, after setting apart the road puramboke, can be assigned or not, taking into consideration of the prolonged possession and occupation of the said property by the petitioner. Interest of justice will be achieved by directing the 2^nd respondent to take an appropriate decision on the above aspect, without any further delay.

¶48

Therefore the writ petition is allowed to the extent of quashing Ext.P13. The 2^nd respondent is directed to re-

¶49

W.P.(c) No. 4178/2010

¶50

-6-

¶51

consider the matter in the light of Ext.P3 application based on Exts.P4 and P5 report and mahazer submitted by the 3^rd respondent. A decision as to whether the balance extent of puramboke land in the possession of the petitioner, leaving an extent of 78 Sq.Mtrs. of road puramboke can be assigned in favour of the petitioner has to be decided by the 2^nd respondent, taking note of the materials available. A decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶52

Sd/- C.K. ABDUL REHIM JUDGE

¶53

AMG

¶54

True copy

¶55

P.A. to Judge

Sarasamma v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarasamma v. District Collector

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

U.N.Radha Vs Sub Registrar, Chevayoor

T.P.Syamala Vs the State of Kerala

Lakshmikutty K Vs State of Kerala Nd Others

Sreedevi.G. Vs State of Kerala

Sibichan Abraham Vs the North Malabar Gramin Bank

Vivian Jolly Vs State of Kerala