Disposed

Vinod Venkidachalam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Nov 2016WP(C)/21170/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court directed competent authorities to remove debris from the water channel after issuing notice to petitioners and affected persons within a month. The court left issues regarding demolition and illegality of the structure open for future agitation.

What did the court decide?

Direction to competent authorities to remove debris from the water channel within one month after issuing notice to petitioners and affected persons.

Vinod Venkidachalam 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 SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/17TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 21170 of 2013 (U)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. VINOD VENKIDACHALAM, S/O.LATE VENKIDACHALAM, HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT VEE VILLA, MATHIL BHAGAM, THIRUVALLA-689101.

¶8

2. RATNACHALAM, W/O.LATE VENKIDACHALAM, RESIDING AT VEE VILLA, MATHI BHAGAM, THIRUVALLA-689101.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.SAJITH KUMAR V. SRI.PRATHAP. S.R.K.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶12

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN 689645.

¶13

3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVALLA, PIN 689101.

¶14

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, THIRUVALLA, PIN 689101. 5. THE TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK SURVEY OFFICE, THIRUVALLA, PIN 689101.

¶15

6. TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA-689101. 7. THE DYSP,OFFICE OF THE DYSP, THIRUVALLA-689101. 8. RAJENDRA PRASAD, POURNAMI MDATHIL, NEDUMPURAM, THIRUVALLA-689110.

¶16

9. DEVI PRASAD, D/O.RAJENDRA PRASAD, POURNAMI MADATHIL, NEDUMPURAM, THIRUVALLA-689110. R1-7 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RON BASTIAN R8 BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

¶19

WP(C).No. 21170 of 2013 (U)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT-P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B3-1790/13 DATED 19/4/2013 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER THIRUVALLA.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19/3/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO.97/13 DATED 9/4/2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTIONS DATED NIL SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P5: A TRUE COPY OF HE PROCEEDINGS NO.97/13(2) DATED 14/8/2013 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶27

EXHIBIT-P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 17/0/2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXHIBIT-P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH OF THE BLOCK NO.9 WARD 8/166.

¶29

EXHIBIT-P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 21/8/2013 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶30

EXHIBIT P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.1228/15 IN WPC.21170/13 DATED 3/2/15 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM

¶31

EXHIBIT P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 16/2/15 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶32

EXHIBIT P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 18/2/15

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶34

ANNEXURE R2A: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11/5/15 ISSUED B Y THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, THIRUVALLA

¶35

EXHIBIT R3A: TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN CONSENT GIVEN BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE R8 DATED 17/8/13.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶40

W.P.(C)No.21170 of 2013

¶41

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2016

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners

¶44

challenging the action of the 9^th respondent in carrying out construction in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.

¶45

Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, illegal constructions were demolished, the only thing remains to be completed is the removal of debris pursuant to the demolition activity, still remaining in the water channel. Therefore, the same will have to be removed from the water channel.

¶46

Therefore, there will be a direction to the competent among the respondents to remove the debris after issuing notice to the petitioners as well as the

¶47

W.P.(C)No.21170 of 2013

¶48

¶49

affected and interested person within a month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The question with respect to the demolition of the structure, the illegality of the same etc. etc. are left open, to be agitated, if any of the parties are aggrieved.

¶50

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.

¶53

rmm/10/11/2016

¶54

[ True copy]

¶55

P.A. to Judge

Vinod Venkidachalam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Venkidachalam 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.K.Sabu Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnana Pillai Vs the District Police Chief

Francis Cleetus Vs District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram

Yohannan.K. Vs the State of Kerala

Mohammed Hussain Vs the Managing Authority, Kerala Water Authority

Athulya J.R. Vs State of Kerala