Disposed

M.v.Mani v. the District Collector

Kerala HC12 Nov 2015WP(C)/6325/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought protection for access to her property obstructed by encroachment on puramboke land and Panchayat construction. Court directed District Collector to conduct an enquiry under the Land Conservancy Act.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd Respondent to conduct an enquiry under the Land Conservancy Act on Petitioner's complaint within 3 months and take action against encroachment found.

M.v.Mani Vs the District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2015/21ST KARTHIKA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 6325 of 2012 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

M.V.MANI, AGED 45 YEARS, D/O. VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT MANJNATH HOUSE, KOTTAMURY, THEKKEMURI, MURINGOOR P.O., CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.MADHU SRI.B.S.SURAJ KRISHNA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR, CIVIL STATION, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680003.

¶11

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680003.

¶12

3. THE TAHSILDAR, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, CIVIL STATION, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680003.

¶13

4. THE KORATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, KORATTY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KORATTY P.O., CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PINCODE-680308. R4 BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE R4 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE R4 BY ADV. SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM R4 BY ADV. SMT.T.M.BINITHA R4 BY ADV. SMT.C.A.SABITHA R1-3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.J.MICHAEL

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-11-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 6325 of 2012 (M) APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBIT P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03-112011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶18

EXHIBIT P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 15-11-2011 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MURINGOOR THEKKEMURI VILLAGE TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

OKB

True copy

P.A. to Judge

K.HARILAL, J.

W.P.(C) No.6325 of 2012

¶25

Dated this the 12^th day of November, 2015.

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This writ petition is filed praying, inter alia, for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to take necessary action against the encroaches over the puramboke property comprised in Sy.No.176/62 of Muringoor Thekkemuri and to restore the said property in its original position and to preserve the petitioner's right of way through that property for the egress and ingress to her property.

¶28

It is the case of the petitioner that she is a destitute woman having nobody to look after her. The access of the petitioner to her house was through the puramboke property in Sy.No.176/58 of Muringoor Thekkemuri Village. The persons who are having properties upto the puramboke land encroached upon the above property and reduced into their possession.

¶29

W.P(C).6325/12 2

¶30

the 4^th respondent Panchayat has also started construction of a community hall without giving any regard to the right of access of the petitioner to public road from her house.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶32

The grievance of the petitioner is that the egress and ingress of her property through the puramboke land is being obstructed by unlawful encroachment made by the people in the locality as well as the Panachayat. Even though the grievance projected is in the nature of a civil dispute, I find that the specific allegation, that the puramboke property is being encroached by the people in the locality, is an issue that deserves to be considered seriously. In that view of the matter, I find that Ext.P1 complaint filed by the petitioner before the 2^nd respondent requires to be considered and it is obligatory on the part of the 2^nd respondent to see that all the puramboke properties are protected without any encroachment.

¶33

W.P(C).6325/12 3

¶34

Therefore, the 2^nd respondent is directed to conduct an enquiry under the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act, on Ext.P1 application, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and take action, if any encroachment is found in the enquiry to be conducted accordingly.

¶35

This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶36

Sd/K. HARILAL, JUDGE

¶37

okb.

M.v.Mani v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.v.Mani v. the District Collector

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

Devika Rani Vs District Collector

Abdul Salam C Vs the Valavannur Service C0-OPERATIVE Bank

Abdul Nasar Vs the Pulikkal Grama Panchayat

A.Sarojini Vs State of Kerala

Mr. Siji Paul Vs Secretary, Kanjikkuzhi Grama Panchayath

Manoj Kumara Kurup Vs the District Collector