This court dismissed a writ appeal filed against a single judge's direction for eviction of an unauthorised occupier. The court held that since the preliminary revision was dismissed and the occupier was to be given notice before action, no interference was warranted.
Writ appeal dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ASHOK BHUSHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/25TH POUSHA, 1937
WA.No. 68 of 2016 ()
(AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C).NO. 6453/2015 DATED 07-12-2015)
APPELLANT/4TH RESPONDENT:
VELAYUDHAN, S/O.PENGAN, MARATHAMPILLY HOUSE, CHETTIKULAM POST, KODASSERY DESOM, TRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1. SABEENA,
W/O.KODAMPARAMBIL BHASKARAN, CHETTIKULAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN-680 001
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, CHALAKUDY SECTION, CHALAKUDY P.O.- 680 307.
3. TAHSILDAR,
4. LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING MUSEUM JUNCTION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.
R1 BY SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. SMT.P.R.REENA
R2 TO R4 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
ASHOK BHUSHAN, CJ &
**A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J. * * * * * * * * * * * * *** W.A.No.68 of 2016
Dated this the 15th day of January 2016
J U D G M E N T
Ashok Bhushan, CJ
Heard.
“i. Issue a writ in the nature of commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to ensure that the illegal occupation of canal bund road connecting the Chandanakkunnu and Balanpeedika road is evicted in view of Ext.P3 order of the 3rd respondent Land Revenue Commissioner, within such time as may be fixed by this Hon'ble court.
ii. issue such other orders, writs or directions as are deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.
Iii. award cost of this proceedings to the petitioners.”
W.A.No.68/2016
2
W.A.No.68/2016
3
them nor they were impleaded in the writ petition. But, the appellant is the single person who has been impleaded in the writ petition. It is contended that the appellant was not heard before passing the order. Hence the order has to be set aside.
counsel for the appellant. That other encroachers were not impleaded in the writ petition and hence no action ought to have been directed against the appellant, does not appeal to us. It is not denied before us that Ext.P3 order has become final, by which the Land Revenue Commissioner has dismissed the revision petition filed by the appellant. It is useful to refer to the order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner, which is to the following effect:
“ORDER
The officials were present. Shri.Rajappan represented the Assistant Engineer. Shri.Ramesh A.S Assistant Engineer RBCI Chalakudy, Junior Superintendent Trissur was also present.
It has come out in evidence that an extent of 0.0074 Hector Irrigation Canal Puramboke comprised in survey number 369/7 and 0.0163 Hector Irrigation
W.A.No.68/2016
4
Canal Puramboke comprised in survey number 369/4 of Kodassery village, was trespassed upon by the revision petitioner Velayudhan. He has trespassed into the Government land even when he was having properties in his name is a serious offence when viewed in the point of Kerala Land Conservancy Act. Steps have to be taken to evict all the other encroachers and other encroachments within this puramboke. No documents are within the possession of the party to establish his right over the property.
It is convinced that Velyaudhan who was having 0.0365 Hector land within Kodassery village in his name, transferred the same on 29/3/2014 in favour of his unmarried daughter. Hence the order challenged in this revision is found to be sustainable and the revision is hereby dismissed.
S/d Commissioner.”
dismissed. Hence, in the event the writ petitioner has come up seeking a direction to the authorities to take action, which was consequent to the order of the revisional authority, we do not find it a case of any discrimination. The version of the appellant that unless action is taken against all the encroachers, no action can
W.A.No.68/2016
5
be taken against him, cannot be accepted.
that the order was passed without hearing him, it is relevant to note that there is no challenge against Ext.P3 order at any Forum and the said order has become final. In this appeal also, nothing has been stated, which may interdict the statutory authority to implement the order passed by the Land Revenue Commissioner. The submission of the appellant is that the order should be set aside on the ground that it was passed without hearing him. As noted above, Ext.P3 order, having become final and the grievance of the writ petitioner was that the statutory authorities, who are obliged to implement the order, have failed in their duty to implement the order, we are of the view that the authorities have rightly been directed to take steps. The learned Single Judge has directed that steps shall be taken against the 4th respondent after issuing notice to the petitioner and the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent, admittedly, is the appellant. The order of the learned Single Judge clearly contemplates that further action shall be taken, after notice to the appellant, which fully protects his interest. It is still open to the appellant to challenge the proposed
W.A.No.68/2016
6
action, if he is aggrieved by the action taken by the State officials. In view of the aforesaid opportunity granted by the learned Single
Judge, we are of the view that the order of the learned Single Judge need not be interfered with in this appeal.
With this observation, this writ appeal is dismissed.
(sd/-)
(ASHOK BHUSHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE)
(sd/-) (A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)
True Copy PA to Judge
jsr/15/01/16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether writ appeal against direction to implement Land Revenue Commissioner's order should be allowed when the appellant was not impleaded as an encroacher.
Whether the Ohio Single Judge's order should be interfered with when further action is to be taken after serving notice to the appellant.
Whether discrimination exists as no action was taken against other identified encroachers.
Velayudhan
Sabeena
Executive Engineer, Department of Irrigation
Tahsildar, Mukundapuram Taluk
Land Revenue Commissioner
Ashok Bhushan
A.M. Shaifquee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
