Petitioner sought remedy regarding a boundary stone placed on her property during road widening. The court noted the petition was filed in 2005 and disposed of it while leaving issues open for independent remedy.
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 MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY 2016/2ND MAGHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 12172 of 2005 (Y)
PETITIONER :
SARAMMA VARGHESE, W/O. LATE P. JOHN VARGHESE, PALANIKUNNATHIL HOUSE VALIYAPARAMPIL PADI, PAZHAVANGADI, RANNI PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
RESPONDENT(S) :
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE TRANSPORT PROJECT, DIVISION OFFICE KANJIRAPILLY.
BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MANOJ P. KUNJACHAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
...2/-
WP(C).No. 12172 of 2005 (Y)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
| EXT.P1 | : COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH. |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2 | COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND THE STONES PUT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. |
| EXT.P3 | COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING LIE OF THE ROAD. |
| EXT.P4 | COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO. 18575/2004. |
| EXT.P5 | COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.8.2004. |
| EXT.P6 | COPY OF THE SECTION 4(1) NOTIFICATION PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 17.1.2005. |
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :
EXT.R2(a) : REVISED ALIGNMENT DESIGN.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
Mn
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
================== W.P.(C).No. 12172 of 2005
==================
Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking following
reliefs:
“i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to remove the boundary stone in petitioners property as her property is not included in exhibit P6 and Road Alignment Sketch.
ii. allow such other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice.
iii. to award the costs of this proceedings to the petitioner.”
Court at the time of road widening. This writ petition was in the year 2005. If the writ petitioner has any subsisting grievance,
the petitioner is free to take up the matter independently with the authorities. Leaving open all the issues, the writ petition is disposed of.
The writ petition is disposed of, as above. sd/-
sab A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to direct the second respondent to remove a boundary stone placed on the petitioner's property during road widening proceedings.
Saramma Varghese
The Secretary to Government, Government of Kerala, Public Works Department
The Executive Engineer, Kerala State Transport Project
A.Muhammed Mustaque
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
