Partly allowed

Sri.T.P.Jose v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Nov 2016WP(C)/13367/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court quashed an order passed by the First Respondent without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner regarding an application submitted by him to assign land in relation to a water source and directed reconsideration after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext.P7 order; directed 1st respondent to reconsider petitions and provide hearing within two months; possession not to be disturbed.

Sri.T.P.Jose Vs State of Kerala — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/20TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 13367 of 2015 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SRI.T.P.JOSE, S/O.T.P. POULOSE (LATE), THIRUTHANATHIL HOUSE, MARIGIRI, MANJAPPRA P.O. ERNAKULAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.J.JULIAN XAVIER SRI.FIROZ K.ROBIN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES (MP) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IDAMALAYR IRRIGATION PROJECT, SUB DIVISION NO.2, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- 683 572.

¶12

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI S.KANNAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.V.

¶15

WP(C).No. 13367 of 2015 (U)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 30/09/2014 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MANJAPPRA. EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE LAY OF BOUNDARY STONES AND THE WELL OF THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22/08/2014 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.` EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/09/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER, KERALA EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 14/10/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SECRETARY, IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT. EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 17/10/2014 IN W.P(C) 27139/2014. EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26/03/2015 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P8-A ROUGH SKETH SHOWING THE PROPERTY. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL -----------------------

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶22

W.P.(C). No.13367 of 2015

¶23

Dated this the 11^th day of November, 2016

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

As per Ext.P6 judgment dated 17.10.2014, this court directed the 1^st respondent to consider the representation dated 14.10.2014 submitted by the petitioner, evident from Ext.P5. According to the petitioner, Ext.P7 order is passed in compliance with the direction, but however no opportunity was provided to the petitioner. The subject matter relates to the property occupied by the petitioner in and around a well in question. According to the petitioner, no manner of prejudice will be caused to the Government, if the land is assigned in favour of the petitioner. I am not aware whether any application for assignment of the said land is pending before the Government. However, since Ext.P7 is passed and since the issue is in respect of a water source, I think the authority should have provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before taking a decision as per the directives issued

¶26

W.P.(C). No.13367 of 2015

¶27

¶28

by this court in Ext.P6 judgment.

¶29

In that view of the matter, I set aside Ext.P7 and direct the 1^st respondent to re-consider Ext.P5 application submitted by the petitioner after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, the possession shall not be disturbed by the 1^st respondent or any other officer under him.

¶30

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶33

smv 16.11.2016

Sri.T.P.Jose v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.T.P.Jose v. State of Kerala

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

Sudeep Mathew Vs Jobin K. George

A.J. Joseph Vs P.H.Sadiq Ali

Bindu John Vs Cochin University of Science and Technology

S.Chellamma Vs the Union of India

Benny M.Baby Vs State of Kerala

Ambily Sivankutty Vs Union of India