Remanded

K.K.Kalyani v. Executive Engineer, Vaikom

Kerala HC18 Oct 2016WP(C)/20934/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court heard writ petitions challenging encroachment by PWD on land possessed by petitioners. Due to lack of statutory notice for survey, court directed respondents to issue notice and conduct measurement with petitioner participation. Eviction stayed pending finalisation.

What did the court decide?

Notice to be issued, measurement redone with petitioner presence, sketch prepared, and eviction stayed for two months.

K.K.Kalyani Vs Executive Engineer, Vaikom — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/26TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 20934 of 2016 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.K.KALYANI

¶8

W/O.(LATE) RAGHAVAN, PERUMPARAYATH HOUSE, EDAPADY, BHARANANGANAM.P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶9

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

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶12

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VAIKOM SUB DIVISION, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 141.

¶13

2. TAHSILDAR

¶14

TALUK OFFICE VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 141.

¶15

R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-10-2016, ALONG WITH WPC. 24117/2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 20934 of 2016 (N)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED DATED 29.7.2005.

¶22

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 11.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER THALAYAZHOM VILLAGE.

¶23

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 15.11.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH DATED 27.11.2012.

¶25

P5: PHOTOS SHOWING THE MARKING AND LAYING OF BOUNDARY STONE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶31

W.P.(C)Nos. 20934 & 24117 of 2016

¶32

Dated this the 18^th day of October, 2016

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

Since the subject matter of both the writ petitions are substantially connected, I heard them together and propose to pass a common judgment. No separate narration of facts are required. Petitioners are in possession of 5.5 cents of land situated in Sy.Nos.255/9A/2, 254/4D and 254/4A, and 5 cents of land in Sy.No.254/4E of Thalayazhom Village in Vaikom Taluk of Kottayam District respectively. According to the petitioners, they have purchased properties, evident from respective title deeds. The property was demarcated and sketches were also issued to the petitioner identifying the land and the exact extent of the land. While so, during the 4^th week of May, 2016, 1^st respondent encroached in the petitioner's land and forcibly laid a survey stone by

¶35

W.P.(C)Nos. 20934 & 24117 of 2016 2

¶36

stating that the portion of the property which are in the possession of the petitioners is the land of PWD, and stated that petitioner will be evicted. It is in this background, challenging the action of the PWD, petitioners have approached this Court.

¶37

In W.P.(C) No.24117/2016 this Court directed

¶38

the Taluk surveyor to conduct measurement of the property and submit a report before this Court. Accordingly, the Taluk surveyor has submitted a report, which states that, petitioners have encroached approximately into one cent of land. The site plan is produced as Annexure R1(a). Therefore, the contention of the respondents is that, petitioners are already in possession of Puramboke land which they are not entitled to retain as of right and PWD is entitled to remove the encroachment.

¶39

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and pleadings put forth by the petitioners and the report submitted by the Taluk Surveyor.

¶40

W.P.(C)Nos. 20934 & 24117 of 2016 3

¶41

On a reading of the report submitted by the Taluk Surveyor, it is evident that, no notice for measurement as directed by this Court, was given to the petitioners. What is discernible from the report is that, 1^st respondent was present while the measurement was carried out. Even going by the provisions of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961, all the petitioners affected by any measurement carried out, are entitled to get notice. However, that exercise was not done. I think, it is only appropriate, an opportunity is given to the petitioners to participate in the survey measurement.

¶42

Therefore, there will be a direction to the competent among the respondents to issue notice to the petitioners and carry out the measurement of the property in question and prepare a sketch and issue an order to the petitioners in accordance with the measurement carried out. The whole exercise shall be completed by the competent among the respondents, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time, the finalisation of the

¶43

W.P.(C)Nos. 20934 & 24117 of 2016 4

¶44

measurement, petitioner shall not be evicted from the premises in question. If the petitioners are still aggrieved, petitioners will be at liberty to seek the

¶45

remedy as provided under the statute.

¶46

Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.

¶47

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶48

[ True copy] P.A. to Judge

¶49

rmm/19/10/2016

K.K.Kalyani v. Executive Engineer, Vaikom

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.K.Kalyani v. Executive Engineer, Vaikom

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lucipher Vs State of Kerala

Saju T.B. Vs State of Kerala

Girija K.S. Vs Thiruvalla Medical Mission Hospital

Poonchola Lakshmi Vs the Village Officer, Ndiyirippu Village

Aboobacker T.K Vs the Forest Range Officer

Prabhakaran Pillai V.V. Vs State of Kerala