Dismissed

A.a.Salim v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Kerala HC4 Jul 2016WP(C)/2659/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refusal by Government to initiate eviction proceedings against respondents 4 and 5 for alleged puramboke land. Court held that a civil suit is pending on the issue of possession, so no eviction proceedings can be initiated. Petitioner may approach civil court to be impleaded. Writ petition closed without prejudice.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed without prejudice; petitioner may approach civil court to be impleaded in pending suit.

A.a.Salim Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation — 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

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2016/13TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

W.P.(C).No.2659 of 2010 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

A.A.SALIM, ARAIKKAKUDI MUNDETH HOUSE, WEST VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.M.ABDUL LATHEEF.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶10

1. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, TATAPURAM, KOCHI.

¶11

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

3. TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHUNADU.

¶13

4. PRINCY, W/O.JENIN, VANDANATHIL, MAROTTICHUVADU, WEST VENGOLA.

¶14

5. DANIEL VARGHESE, VANDANATHIL, MAROTTICHUVADU, WEST VENGOLA.

¶15

6. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE(RURAL), ALUVA.

¶16

*** ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 7 AND8 IMPLEDED: ------------------------------------------**

¶17

ADDL.R7. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM.

¶18

ADDL.R8. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.W.D. (ROADS DIVISION), PERUMBAVOOR.

¶19

*ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 17.03.2010 IN I.A.NO.3602 OF 2010.

¶20

R1 BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR [SR.] R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPINATH R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.J.ANAND R2, R3, R6 TO R8 BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MANOJ P.KUNJACHAN R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.VISWANATHAN

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶22

W.P.(C) NO.2659 OF 2010

¶23

APPENDIX

¶24

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶25

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 06.01.2010.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 6.1.2010.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT.6.1.2010.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 8.1.2010.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 12.01.2010.
EXT.P10	TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 21.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM.
EXT.P11	TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 2.3.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶27

EXT.R1(a)	TRUE COPY OF NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 21.12.2009 ISSUED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE.
EXT.R1(b)	TRUE COPY OF LOCATION PLAN AND POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT'S HUSBAND.
EXT.R3(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH FIXING THE BOUNDARIES OF PURAMBOKE LAND.
EXT.R3(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE PRESENT SKETCH AS PER THE INSPECTION DATED 16.02.2010.
EXT.R5(a)	TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF SALE DEED NO.2636 OF 2005.

¶28

- 2 -

¶29

W.P.(C) NO.2659 OF 2009

¶30

EXT.R5(b) TRUE PHOTOSTAT	COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT.
EXT.R5(c) TRUE PHOTOSTAT	COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF BASIC TAX REGISTER.
EXT.R5(d) TRUE PHOTOCOPY	OF THE THANDAPER REGISTER.
EXT.R5(e) TRUE PHOTOSTAT	COPY OF THE LEASE DEED.
EXT.R5(f) TRUE PHOTOCOPY	OF THE REPORT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶31

vku/[true copy ]

¶32

K. Vinod Chandran, J ---------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.2659 of 2010-F

¶33

¶34

Dated this the 04^th day of July, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

There is a civil dispute pending between the 4^th and 5^th respondents and the Government and the issue of whether the respondents 4 and 5 are in possession of any road puramboke ought to be considered in that suit. The suit is numbered as O.S.No.55 of 2014 before the Munsiff's Court, Perumbavoor. The petitioner was aggrieved in the writ petition with the refusal of the Government to initiate proceedings against the respondents 4 and 5 for eviction from the alleged puramboke. Since a suit is pending, there can be no proceedings initiated as of now. The petitioner would be entitled to approach the civil Court and get himself impleaded in the suit to advance his contentions, if he so desires. As of now, the writ petition need not be kept pending here, since the entire matter has to be adjudicated in the suit. The contentions of either parties are left open.

¶37

The writ petition would stand closed, without prejudice.

¶38

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶39

Vku/-

¶40

[ true copy ]

A.a.Salim v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.a.Salim v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

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

K.M.Santhosh Vs Arijith Basu

Raveendran P.S. Vs R. Rajasekharan Nair

T.Abdul Khader Haji Vs the Special Tahasildar (L.a) Kasaragod

Shaji Vs District Executive Officer

K.K.Dasan Vs Velloor Grama Panchayat

Elikulam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs State of Kerala and Another