Disposed

Th Vicar v. the District Collector

Kerala HC29 Feb 2016WP(C)/3069/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought direction for respondents to use premises as a burial ground based on a 1968 order. The Court held that the District Collector must decide the issue after hearing the petitioners and respondents 4 and 5. Petition disposed within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Collector to take a decision on the use of premises as a burial ground after hearing parties within two months.

Th Vicar Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/10TH PHALGUNA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 3069 of 2016 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. THE VICAR, ST.SEBASTIAN'S CHURCH, VAKA, P.O.VAKA, MATTOM, THRISSUR-680602.

¶8

2. ANTO C.D., AGED 43 YEARS, SON OF DEVASSY, CHERUVATHOOR, VAKA P.O., THRISSUR-686602.

¶9

3. JOHSON C.E., AGED 55 YEARS, SON OF ENASU, CHERUVATHOOR, VAKA P.O., THRISSUR-686602.

¶10

4. VARGHESE E.E., AGED 55 YEARS, SON OF ENASU, EDAKKALATHUR HOUSE, VAKA P.O., THRISSUR-686602.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, THRISSUR, PINCODE-680003.

¶14

2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GURUVAYOOR POLICE STATION, KANDASSERRY P.O., GURUVAYOOR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680102.

¶15

3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAVARATTY POLICE STATION, PAVARATTY P.O., MULLASSERRY, THRISSUR, PIN 680509.

¶16

4. THE ELAVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ELVALLY, P.O.CHITTATTUKARA, THRISSUR, PIN 680511, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶17

--2--

¶18

---2--

¶19

WP(C).No. 3069 of 2016 (G)

¶20

5. MANI, AGED 48 YEARS, SON OF RAMADAS, MANAKKATHU, VAKA P.O., ELAVALLY, CHAVAKKAD, THRISSUR-680602.

¶21

R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.MANOJ KUNJACHAN R4 BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL SMT.R.RAJITHA SMT.VINAYA V.NAIR

¶22

R5 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

mbr/

¶25

WP(C).No. 3069 of 2016 (G)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXHIBIT-P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION DATED 28.02.1968.
EXHIBIT-P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.12.1968 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P3:	TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH OF THE CHURCH PROPERTY AND LOCATION OF THE CEMETERY.
EXHIBIT-P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.NO.2988/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD.
EXHIBIT-P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.12.2015 IN I.A.NO.11894/2015 IN O.S.NO.2988/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD.
EXHIBIT-P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2015 IN I.A.NO.11894/2015 IN O.S.NO.2988/2015 OF MUNSIFF COURT, CHAVAKKAD.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶34

=================== W.P.(C).No.3069 of 2016

¶35

=======================

¶36

Dated this the 29^th day of February, 2016

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioner approached this Court seeking direction to respondents to use premises mentioned in Ext.P2 as a burial ground.

¶39

The petitioner alleged that by virtue of proceedings of District Collector dated 13.12.1968, produced as Ext.P2, they are entitled to use premises as burial ground. It appears that party respondents are obstructing the use of above places as burial ground on account of proximity to their residential place.

¶40

The learned Government Pleader submits that even though an order has been issued in the year1968, the premises referred in Ext.P2 never been used as burial ground. The party respondents also submit that they have filed a civil suit. Civil Suit is pending. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the injunction petition filed by the party respondents have

¶41

been dismissed by the civil court.

¶42

This Court is of the view that considering the nature of

¶43

issue, the District Collector shall take a decision in the matter after

¶44

W.P.(C).No.3069 of 2016 2

¶45

hearing the petitioners as well as the respondents four and five.

¶46

Necessary decision shall be taken within two months

¶47

from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶48

With the above observations, this Writ Petition is

¶49

disposed of.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶52

/True Copy/

¶53

SKV P.A. TO JUDGE

Th Vicar v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Th Vicar v. the District Collector

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

Chandrika Vs the Sub Registrar, Parassala

Ambujakshy Vs State of Kerala

K.Radhakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Sameer Vs Radhakrishnan

Kunjali Jibran.a Vs the State of Kerala

Sajina Ibrahim Vs the Assistant Engineer