Disposed

Easwari Amma v. the Bdo, Harippad & Others

Kerala HC25 Oct 2016WP(C)/663/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner alleged encroachment of her property for widening a Panchayat road under the Sadak Yojana Project. The Court, finding no counter affidavit and no evidence of proper acquisition proceedings, directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claims after affording an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider the claims raised by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing and pass appropriate orders within three months.

Easwari Amma Vs the Bdo, Harippad & Others — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/3RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 663 of 2008 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

EASWARI AMMA, D/O SOUDAMINI, PUTHEN THOPPIL, ERIKKAVU MURI, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, HARIPPAD.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ALAPPUZHA.

¶12

3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT,

¶13

GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

*** ADDL R4 IMLEADED**

¶15

4. KUMARAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,KUMARAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶16

ADDL R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 23/01/2008 IN IA NO 1061/08 IN THIS WPC.

¶17

R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI SANTHOSH PETER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

K.V.

¶20

WPC NO.663 OF 2008:

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶23

P1: COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1810 OF 82 OF SRO,HARIPPAD DATED 15.6.1982.

¶24

P2: COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.4872 OF 1969 DATED 23.12.1969.

¶25

P3: COPY OF THE HOSPITAL DISCHARGE SLIP ISSUED FROM INH.S. SANJIVINI,KOCHI DATED 11.12.2007.

¶26

P4: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE MISCHIEF COMMITTED BY THE RESPONDENTS.

¶27

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

K.V.

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C) No.663 of 2008

¶33

Dated this the 25^th day of October, 2016

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner submits that she is the owner of two parcels of properties with an extent of 19 cents and 99 cents respectively. Her complaint is that a portion of her property is encroached for widening of the Panchayat road starting from Mundappally to Pazhayachira. According to her, the respondents have encroached into her property for widening the road in December 2007, under the Sadak Yojana Project. Her contention is that she had already surrendered 4 meters at the time of formation of the Panchayat road in the year 1983. But in 2007 another portion of her property has been encroached and yielding coconut trees in her property were uprooted using JCB. According to her, if at all the road has to be widened, it could have been done only in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and Rules.

¶36

None of the respondents have filed any counter affidavit. The petitioner has produced Ext.P4 photographs to show that the

¶37

:2:

¶38

W.P.(C) No.663 of 2008

¶39

respondents have encroached into her property, without initiating any proceedings for acquisition in accordance with law. It appears that no proceedings were initiated for acquiring the land.

¶40

However, in the absence of a counter affidavit, it has to be assumed that the averment in the writ petition are correct and respondents do not have any objection in granting relief to the petitioner. The petitioner herself is not sure whether the road has been widened at the instance of the Panchayat or Government. At any rate, in case the property of the petitioner has been utilised for widening of the road, as alleged by her, her complaint requires to be considered by the respondents. There is

¶41

no provision to utilise the land of a person other than in accordance with rules. Therefore, the respondents shall consider

¶42

the complaint of the petitioner relating to the alleged encroachment made for the purpose of widening of the road. In case the land is utilised by Government, it can only after acquiring the land under the proceedings under Land Acquisition Act.

¶43

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing

¶44

W.P.(C) No.663 of 2008

¶45

:3:

¶46

respondents 1, 2 and the additional respondent No.4 to consider the claims raised by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall furnish a copy of the writ petition before the respondents along with the copy of the judgment.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶49

rkc

Easwari Amma v. the Bdo, Harippad & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Easwari Amma v. the Bdo, Harippad & Others

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

Beeran Vs Shaiju

N.Ramaswamy Pillai Vs State of Kerala

Joseph Vs the Federal Bank Ltd. Eriam Branch

K.Sreebhagya Vs State of Kerala

Christinal Jacob & 2 Others Vs State of Kerala & 5 Others

Chinnamanikkom Vs the Kerala Financial Corporation & Anr.