Disposed

John Thomas @ Santhosh v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Oct 2016WP(C)/6506/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction to construct a retaining wall near a proposed check dam to prevent his land from submerging. Court satisfied private respondent's submission that measures are underway and disposed of the petition by directing respondents to identify submerged properties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to identify properties that will submerge due to the check dam bund and take necessary measures to avoid calamities.

John Thomas @ Santhosh Vs the 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

FRIDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/22ND ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 6506 of 2016 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JOHN THOMAS @ SANTHOSH AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, PARAKKAL HOUSE, MOONNILAVU P.O., MOONNILAVU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SMT.C.DEVIKA RANI KAIMAL

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA

¶11

REP. BY ITS DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 002.

¶12

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT (IRRIGATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT (IRRIGATION), COLLECTORATE P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 002.

¶14

4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MAJOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, PALA, CIVIL STATION, PALA PO-686 575.

¶15

BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No. 6506 of 2016 (K)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONE ----------------	R(S)' EXHIBITS -------
EXT.P1-	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.36/2016 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT OF ERATTUPETTA.
EXT.P2-	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 17.2.2016 IN IA NO.176/2016 IN OS NO.36/2016 ON THE FILES OF MUNSIFF COURT, ERATTUPETTA.
EXT.P3-	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.2.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
RESPONDE ----------------	NT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -------

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

dlk

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶24

W.P.(C) No.6506 of 2016

¶25

Dated this the 14^th day of October, 2016 JUDGMENT

¶26

Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to respondents 1 to 4 to construct a retaining wall before commissioning of the proposed check dam, being constructed across the Meenachil river. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that, if the retaining wall is not constructed, same will adversely affect the nature and lie of his property and that of his brother. Petitioner filed Original Suit as per Ext.P1 and an Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and has submitted Ext.P2 commission report. It is the case of the petitioner, Ext.P2 commission report would establish the fact that, the construction of retaining wall is absolutely necessary to preserve the property of the petitioner and that of his brother. Despite the fact of issuing notice to respondents 1 to 4 they are proceeding with the construction

¶27

W.P.(C) No.6506 of 2016

¶28

¶29

of the check dam unmindful of the request made by the petitioner to construct the retaining wall. It is in this background seeking appropriate direction, this writ petition is filed.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and perused the documents on record and the pleadings put forth.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the submissions made in the writ petition. It is also submitted that property of the petitioner and his brother is situated upstream and above the proposed check dam and if the check dam construction is complete the land belonging to the petitioner and his brother will submerge in water.

¶32

However, learned Government Pleader on

¶33

instructions submitted that, already necessary instructions are given to the revenue and irrigation department to construct the retainng wall so as to protect the interest of upstream property holders and for reporting and demarcating the area etc., etc. In that view of the matter I am satisfied

¶34

W.P.(C) No.6506 of 2016

¶35

¶36

that the grievance voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition will stand satisfied, if such a construction is carried out after identifying the respective properties, which will submerge in water, consequent to the competion of construction of the bund. Recording the said submission made by the learned Government Pleader I am of the considered opinion that the writ petition can be given quietus. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the respondents to identify the property which will submerge in water, consequent to the completion of construction of bund and do the necessary, so as to avoid calamities as pointed out by the petitioner.

¶37

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

SHAJI P. CHALY,JUDGE

¶40

dlk/14/10/

John Thomas @ Santhosh v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Thomas @ Santhosh v. the 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

K.K.Nazar Vs Sadique Ali

K.P.Paul Vs S.M.Vijayanand

Sunena Chandran Vs State of Kerala

N.K. Kuriakose Vs M.G. Ramachandran

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs P.a.Abdul Rasheed

Achilles A.B. Vs State of Kerala