Disposed

Gospel for Asia v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jun 2016WP(C)/16203/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged notification directing District Collector to decide a factual dispute regarding land reclamation. Court directed Sub Collector to conduct preliminary enquiry within two months to assist District Collector in final decision, without ordering restoration of land.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner and parties to appear before Sub Collector on 30.06.2016 for preliminary enquiry; Sub Collector to report within two months; Collector to conclude within two months.

Gospel for Asia Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | 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 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/27TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 16203 of 2016 (A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

GOSPEL FOR ASIA MANJADI PO, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY SMT.SINY PUNNOOSE MANAGING TRUSTEE AND CHIEF FUNCTIONARY THORUGH HER POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CHURCH JACOB POTHEN, AGED 57 YEARS S/O.LATE POTHEN, THERADIYIL HOUSE NIRANAM WEST MURI, NIRANAM VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.R.D.SHENOY (SR.) SRI.P.HARIDAS SMT.S.SIKKY SMT.DIVYA K.NAIR SRI.P.C.SHIJIN SRI.CHERIAN GEE VARGHESE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY TO GOERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶12

3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689 645.

¶13

4. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE & SUB COLLECTOR REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 101.

¶14

5. K.A. VARGHESE, S/O. T.V. ABRAHAM KOCHIYIL HOUSE, PUSHPAMANGALAM KUTTAPUZHA P.O., THIRUVALLA PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 101.

¶15

[ADDL. R5 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03.06.2016 IN I.A. NO.6258 OF 2016]

¶16

[CONTD...]

¶17

WP(C).No. 16203 of 2016 (A) 2

¶18

6. SHERRY THOMAS, AGED 60 YEARS S/O. OOMMEN THOMAS, KOVOOR MANAPURATH HOUSE KARAKKAL P.O., THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶19

[ADDL. R6 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 03.06.2016 IN I.A. NO.7023 OF 2016]

¶20

BY ADVS. SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE SRI.JAI GEORGE SMT.MARY BENJEMIN SMT.K.GEETHA (PONKUNNAM) BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. SUSHEELA BHAT

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C).No. 16203 of 2016 (A)

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-

¶25

EXT.P1	-	COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DATA BANK PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTY OF PETITIONER.
EXT.P2	-	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.C4-15525/2003 DATED 20.08.2003 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	-	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.11.2010.
EXT.P4	-	COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.GO(MS) NO.110/2015/REV. DATED 17.03.2015.
EXT.P5	-	COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 22.04.2015.
EXT.P6	-	COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O(MS) NO.434/2015/RD DATED 08.09.2015 ISUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7	-	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.29541/2015 DATED 15.01.2016.
EXT.P8	-	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2016.
EXT.P9	-	COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC NO.7753/2016 DATED 10.03.2016.
EXT.P10	-	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN RP NO.179/2014 IN WPC NO.12759/2011.
EXT.P11	-	COPY OF THE ORDER A3-5048/15 DATED 22.04.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P12	-	COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.04.2016 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P13	-	COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3176/1992 DATED 28.11.1992 OF THE S.R.O., THIRUVALLA.
EXT.P14	-	COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY ROY CHACKO DATED 28.05.2012.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶31

---------------------------------W.P(C). No.16203 of 2016-A

¶32

---------------------------------Dated this the 17^th day of June, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner has challenged Exts.P11&P12 on the ground that the judgment at Ext.P7 directs the District Collector to decide an issue, which has now been relegated to the Sub Collector, as is seen from Ext.P12. Admittedly, there were disputes and there was allegation of reclamation of land and a Thodu, which was dealt with elaborately by this Court in Ext.P7. By Ext.P7, certain factual discrepancies in the impugned order were noticed and it was directed that the District Collector would decide the issue, after hearing all the parties.

¶35

W.P(C). No.16203 of 2016-A

¶36

¶37

The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that, when this Court has, by Ext.P7 judgment, directed the District Collector to consider the issue, the petitioner has been issued with a notice to appear before the Sub Collector. Ext.P7 specifically notices that there were factual discrepancies and it is only based on the facts, could a decision be taken by the District Collector, is the argument.

¶38

The learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) appearing for the official respondents would submit that the District Collector had not relegated the matter for the decision of the Sub Collector, but had only directed the Sub Collector to conduct a preliminary hearing in so far as gathering of

¶39

W.P(C). No.16203 of 2016-A

¶40

¶41

facts and filing of reports, regarding the discrepancies noticed by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment. This Court does not find any fault in that since the District Collector, who is the head of administration of the District, cannot be expected to look at every aspect of the matter after conducting physical inspection of the premises. There can be found no defect in the District Collector having deputed his subordinates to ferret out the factual aspects and submit report on the same. But however the final decision definitely has to be taken by the District Collector, on the reports made available by the Sub Collector. The learned Special Government Pleader (Revenue) also submits that despite notice issued on two days, the petitioner had not turned up before the Sub

¶42

W.P(C). No.16203 of 2016-A

¶43

¶44

Collector. The learned counsel appearing for the party respondents assert that they were before the Sub Collector but however the

¶45

petitioner did not turn up.

¶46

In such circumstance, the petitioner and the party respondents or their authorised representatives are directed to appear before the Sub Collector on 30.06.2016. The Office of the Sub Collector shall either carry on the hearing on that date or on any convenient date within a week; personally intimated to the parties then and there. The Sub Collector shall expedite the preliminary enquiry and submit a report to the District Collector within a period of two months. In the course of the preliminary enquiry, if notices are issued to the petitioner or the party respondents, they

¶47

W.P(C). No.16203 of 2016-A

¶48

¶49

shall appear before the Sub Collector and cooperate in the completion of the preliminary enquiry. After submission of the enquiry report to the District Collector, the District Collector shall give a date of hearing and conclude the matter after hearing all concerned within two months. In the meanwhile Ext.P7 shall be enforced and the petitioner shall not carry on any further reclamation of land, but however the petitioner shall not also be ask to restore any land or Thodu, till final orders

¶50

are passed by the District Collector.

¶51

The writ petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶54

//True Copy//

¶55

P.A. to Judge.

¶56

sp/17/06/16

Gospel for Asia v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gospel for Asia v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yanganam Parishthithy S.Samithy Vs State of Kerala

Ruby Varghese Vs the State of Kerala

Raghunathan Vs State of Kerala

All Kerala Bus Operators Forum Vs V.A. Krishnadas

Sri.R.Nagarajan Vs Sri.P.Karthikeyan Nair

J.S.Akhil Vs University of Kerala