Disposed

P.Sundareswaran @ Raman v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Oct 2016WP(C)/20438/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Elevancherry Panchayat's attempt to encroach into the petitioner's property for road widening. The Court held that whether proceedings are for removal of encroachment or acquisition, they must be conducted in accordance with law with prior notice to the affected party. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the Panchayat.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Panchayat reserved liberty to proceed in accordance with law with notice to the affected party.

P.Sundareswaran @ Raman Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/4TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20438 of 2010 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

P.SUNDARESWARAN @ RAMAN, SON OF PAZHANIYANDI, KOZHIKULAM HOUSE, KOTTAYAKKADU, ELEVENCHERRY.P.O., CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.DILEEP VARGHESE SMT.TESMY DILEEP

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶11

2. ELEVANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, ELEVANCHERRY VILLAGE, CHITTOOR TALUK, PALAKKAD.

¶12

3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DISASTER MANAGEMENT(REVENUE) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶13

R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. VINEETHA HARIRAJ R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Msd.

¶16

WP(C).No. 20438 of 2010 (D)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶19

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28.06.2007 IN W.P(C).NO. 18342/2007.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2007 IN W.P(C).NO. 22329/2009.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2008 IN W.P(C).NO. 13127/2008.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 21.10.2009 OF DEPUTY SECRETARY, DISASTER MANAGEMENT (REVENUE).

¶23

EXHIBIT P5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ON 13.09.2010. EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15.09.2010. EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.10.2010 SENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶24

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 02.08.2010.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶26

EXHIBIT R2(1):	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. 6/07/LC DATED 02.06.2007 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ELAVANCHERY TO THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2(2):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 22.09.2010 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THIS RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT R2(3):	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08.10.2010 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶31

W.P.(C) No. 20438 of 2010 (D)

¶32

-----------------------------------------Dated: 26^th October, 2016

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The petitioner filed the above writ petition alleging

¶35

high handedness on the part of the 2^nd respondent Panchayat insofar as encroaching into his property for widening of the road. The petitioner contended that there was a cart-track through his property, abutting the Shankaramkudam - Adippara road. Under the guise of widening the Kottayakkadu - Addippara road, attempts were made to encroach into the petitioner's property and widen the road, including the cart-track as part of the road. The petitioner's specific contention was that the cart-track belong to the petitioner and was within the petitioner's property.

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 20438/2010

¶37

-2-

¶38

The petitioner, on attempts being made by the Panchayat or apprehending such attempts, was thrice before this Court. Exts. P1, P2 and P3 directed that the Panchayat could only proceed in accordance with law. The petitioner apprehends that now a different proposal has been made for widening of Anditharakatt - Adippara road, which also attempts the very same encroachment earlier attempted.

¶39

The respondent Panchayat has filed a detailed counter affidavit, in which it has been submitted that the petitioner is a trespasser and there is encroachment into public puramboke. It is also submitted that there were meetings convened to explore measures to get the petitioner to suo motu surrender the property. The petitioner has a contention that by seeking for surrender, the Panchayat accepts the fact that the

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 20438/2010

¶41

-3-

¶42

petitioner had title over the property. This Court is not able to countenance such a contention since the Panchayat only stated that the petitioner has trespassed into the property and that they are exploring ways and means to get him to suo motu surrender the same. If such suo motu surrender is not made, then, necessarily, the Panchayat would have to take proceedings in accordance with law for eviction of the tresspasser. Suffice it to notice that any encroachment into the Government's or the Panchayat's property, would have to be proceeded against in accordance with law so as to remove such encroachment. If there is no encroachment and the Panchayath intends to widen the road, annexing the petitioner's property, then, necessarily, the Panchayat would have to take acquisition proceedings.

¶43

W.P.(C) No. 20438/2010

¶44

-4-

¶45

Suffice it to direct that either way, whether it be of removal of encroachment or acquisition of property; the same has to be in accordance with law with notice to the affected party; for which the Panchayath would be reserved liberty. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶46

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶47

jjj 27/10/16

P.Sundareswaran @ Raman v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Sundareswaran @ Raman 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

A.Abdul Razaak Vs Anu.R.S

Varghese M.O Vs Kishore

Ambujakshi P. Vs K.K.Muhammed

K.N. Maya Vs State of Kerala

Infra Elevators India (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Poornima Narayanan Vs the Secretary, Kannur Municipal Corporation