Disposed

International Educational Trust v. District Collector, Ekm

Kerala HC20 May 2016OP/7482/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a stop memo and notice regarding alleged trespass on government land covered by the Kerala Land Conservancy Act. The court set aside the notice due to a long-standing stay, clarifying that this does not bar fresh proceedings if the land qualifies under the Act, with future notice to the petitioner required.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the notice under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act (Ext.P4) and effectively the associated stop memo.

International Educational Trust Vs District… — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2016/30TH VAISAKHA, 1938

¶5

OP.No. 7482 of 1996 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TRUST REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE M/ BAVA MOOPAN, 44/62 WOOD HOUSE BUILDING, SRM ROAD KOCHI-682 018.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN SRI.V.M.KURIAN(JR.)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM.

¶11

2. TAHSILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

3. VILLAGE OFFICER VAZHAKKALA VILLAGE, VAZHAKKALA KOCHI-682 021.

¶13

BY SRI. MANOJ P. KUNJACHAN

¶14

THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

OP.No. 7482 of 1996 (N)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶18

EXT.P1	-	COPY OF SALE DEED NO.1865/92 OF SRO, THRIKKAKARA EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P2	-	COPY OF STOP MEMO NO.32/96 DATED 16.02.1996 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	-	COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 16.02.1996 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P4	-	COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.I.4-4784/96 DATED 29.03.1996 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL

¶20

EXT.R1(A) EXTRACT OF THE NOTIFICATION NO.GA.II/C1/2871/92 DATED 29.11.1993 FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT, GENERAL AND ACADEMIC BRANCH-II. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶21

¶22

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶23

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

¶24

O.P. No.7482 of 1996-N

¶25

---------------------------------Dated this the 20^th day of May, 2016

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

None appears for the petitioners, when the matter was taken up for hearing. The above petition was filed against Ext.P2 Stop Memo and Ext.P4 notice issued under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 [for brevity, the Act of 1957]. The allegation was that the petitioner had trespassed into Government land, which according to the Government is a Thodu purambokku. The construction of the compound wall was interdicted by Ext.P2 and the petitioner was then issued with notice under the Act of 1957 by Ext.P4.

¶28

O.P. No.7482 of 1996-N

¶29

¶30

The petitioner contends that the entire property was obtained by a valid sale, evidenced by Ext.P1. The show cause notice at Ext.P4 was stayed by this Court as early as in 30.04.1996. The Original Petition has been pending here for almost two decades and no purpose will be served in directing finalisation of Ext.P4. Ext.P4 hence would stand set aside. It is also to be noticed that Ext.P2 was not touched by this Court and the construction could not have been proceeded with.

¶31

It is made clear that the setting aside of Ext.P4 would not prejudice the Government from initiating fresh proceedings under the Act of 1957, if the land is covered under the said enactment. The learned Government Pleader also submits that as per the subsequent enactments,

¶32

O.P. No.7482 of 1996-N

¶33

¶34

the Thodu purambokku would be deemed to be the property of the Local Self Government Institution and in such circumstance, if the jurisdictional Local Self Government Institution is of the opinion that proceedings have to be invoked, it could be invoked under the applicable law. It is made clear that this Court has set aside the notice only since there was a stay in operation for all these years. This Court has not looked into the merits of the matter. If at all any proceedings are initiated either by the Local Self Government Institution or by the Government, the petitioner would be entitled to set up his defence, in accordance with law. It is also made clear that if any proceedings are initiated against the petitioner, then proper

¶35

O.P. No.7482 of 1996-N

¶36

¶37

notice should be issued to the petitioner.

¶38

The above Original Petition is disposed of.

¶39

No costs.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,

JUDGE.

//True Copy//

P.A. to Judge.

sp/20/05/16

International Educational Trust v. District Collector, Ekm

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

International Educational Trust v. District Collector, Ekm

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

Y.Jayamohan(Minor) Vs M.G.Uty., Rep. by Its Vice Chancellor

Kalavathy Vs the State of Kerala

P. Balakrishnan Vs the District Collector

P.K.Kumari Vs Patil Ajit Bhagawatrao

Yr.Haridasan Vs Uty. of Calicut

Vengara Block Labour Contract Co-Op Vs the Parappur Grama Panchayat