Allowed

Balakrishna Kurup v. Dr.M.K.Sasidharan Pillai

Kerala HC19 Jan 2016WA/62/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appeal was allowed. The High Court set aside the Single Judge's judgment which quashed a survey order, holding that ends of justice required remitting the matter for hearing all parties who were not served notice in the lower court proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The judgment dated 17th December 2015 is set aside. The writ petition is remitted to the learned Single Judge for hearing parties and passing fresh orders as per law.

Balakrishna Kurup Vs Dr.M.K.Sasidharan Pillai — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/29TH POUSHA, 1937

¶5

WA.No. 62 of 2016 () IN WP(C).38303/2015

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 38303/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 17-12-2015

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IN THE WPC :

¶8

1. BALAKRISHNA KURUP THELLIYIL HOUSE, (PRANAVAM), NIRANAM VADAKKUM BHAGAM KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PIN-689 621.

¶9

2. BINDU JAYAPRAKASH THELLIYIL HOUSE, (PRANAVAM), NIRANAM VADAKKUM BHAGAM KADAPRA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PIN-689 621.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.D.KISHORE

¶11

SMT.MINI GOPINATH SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA)

¶12

RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 IN THE WPC :

¶13

1. DR.M.K.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, AGED 66 YEARS S/O. LATE KESAVA KURUP, MANAKKU THEKKETHIL HOUSE NIRANAM VADAKKUM BHAGAM MURI, KADAPRA VILLAGE THIRUVALLA TALUK.

¶14

2. THE TALUK TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA-689 601.

¶15

3. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA-689 601.

¶16

4. THE TALUK SURVEYOR

¶17

TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA-689 601.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SRI.MVS.NAMBOOTHIRY BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.GIRIJA GOPAL

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WA NO.62/16

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

APPELLANTS EXHIBITS

¶23

ANNEXURE R1(a): A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 27/7/2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KADAPRA VILLAGE TO THE RESPONDENT WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

¶24

ANNEXURE R1(b): A TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 27/7/2011 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KADAPRA, IN FAVOUR OF JAYAPRAKASH WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

//True Copy//

PS to Judge

ASHOK BHUSHAN, C.J. &

¶29

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

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

W.A. No. 62 of 2016

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

Dated this, the 19^th day of January, 2016

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Ashok Bhushan, C.J.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for private respondents 4 and 5.

¶37

This appeal has been filed against judgment dated 17^th December, 2015 in WP(C) No.38303/2015. The writ petition was filed by the 1^st respondent to this appeal. The present appellants were respondents 4 and 5 to the writ petition. In the writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing Ext.P10 proceedings issued by the Additional Tahsildar. Following reliefs were prayed for in the writ petition;

¶38

“(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P10 proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent; Or in the alternative to declare the same as legally unsustainable;

¶39

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 3^rd

¶40

W.A. No.62/16

¶41

-:2:-

¶42

respondent to conduct the survey of the property of 4.66 Ares comprised in Re-Survey No.141/2 (Old Survey No.321/13-B-2) of Kadapra Village with due notice to the petitioner also.”

¶43

Writ petition was filed on 16/12/2015 and was taken by the Court on 17^th December, 2015. Learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by setting aside Ext.P10 and the Additional Tahsildar was directed to take appropriate steps with the assistance of the 3^rd respondent to survey and demarcate the property after issuing notice to the petitioner and the party respondents. Challenging the said judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellants have come up in the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that although appellants were respondents 4 and 5 to the writ petition, without issuing notice to them, Ext.P10 order has been set aside. It is stated that Ext.P10 order was passed after hearing the present appellants as well as the 1^st respondent. It is submitted that it was appropriate that the appellants also ought to have been heard before setting aside Ext.P10 order. Learned counsel for the 1^st respondent does not dispute the submission that the judgment was passed by the learned Single Judge without issuing notice to the appellants, who

¶44

W.A. No.62/16

¶45

-:3:-

¶46

were parties to the writ petition.

¶47

In view of the aforesaid, without entering into the merits of the case, we are of the view that ends of justice deserve in setting aside the judgment dated 17^th December, 2015 and remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge for hearing the parties and passing fresh orders in accordance with law.

¶48

In the result, the appeal is allowed and judgment dated 17^th December, 2015 is set aside.

¶49

Let the writ petition be listed before the learned Single Judge as per roster.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶54

Rp19/1/2016

¶55

//True Copy//

¶56

PS to Judge

Balakrishna Kurup v. Dr.M.K.Sasidharan Pillai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balakrishna Kurup v. Dr.M.K.Sasidharan Pillai

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

Vijayan Vs a.Basheer

M/S.Southern Field Ventrues Private Limited, Represented by Its Managing Director Vs Sri.G.J.Teggi, the Custodian of Ecologically Fragile Lands and Chief Conservator of Forests

Abdul Rashid Vs the Special Tahsildar (La),Trichur.

Jayasree S. Vs Coir Board

C.P Damodaran Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Medical Council of India (Mci) Vs v.N.Public Health and Eduational Trust