Partly allowed

M/S. Toughglass India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC1 Jun 2016WP(C)/8652/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition alleging unauthorized construction on PWD road margins by the respondents. The court directed relevant authorities to remove the encroachment with notice to parties within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents 2 to 8 to remove the encroachment on Government property with notice to parties within three months.

M/S. Toughglass India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Kerala and… — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2016/11TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 8652 of 2011 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S. TOUGHGLASS INDIA PVT. LTD., INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AREA, EDAYAR, BINANIPURAM, PIN-683502, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, T.K.VARGHESE, AGED 49, S/O. T.L.KURIAN.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD,ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-683030.

¶13

3. M/S. KADUNGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADANUNGALLUR,

¶14

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-683110.

¶15

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGIEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN-683512.

¶16

5. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT COCHIN, COCHIN-682001.

¶17

6. TAHAZILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, NORTH PARAVUR-683512.

¶18

7. VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶19

KADANGALLUR VILLAGE, PIN-683110.

¶20

--2--

¶21

--2--

¶22

WP(C).No. 8652 of 2011 (F)

¶23

8. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BINANIPURAM POLICE STATION, BINANIPURAM-683502, EDAYAR.

¶24

9. HEAD LOAD AND GENERAL WORKERS(INTUC), BINANIPURAM PO-683502, EDAYAR UNIT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶25

*ADDL. R10 IMPLEDED

¶26

10.C.P.PAULOSE,S/O.PAILY, CHITTETHUTHAZHATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAYAR,BINANIPURAM,PIN-683 502

¶27

R1, R2 & R4 TO R8 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.S.SAJEEV R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.VARGHESE ADDL R10 BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

mbr/

¶30

WP(C).No. 8652 of 2011 (F)

¶31

APPENDIX

¶32

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶33

EXT.P1	: TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION
	BEING CARRIED OUT BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT ON THE
	ROAD PURAM POKE AT BINANIPURAM, EDAYAR.
EXT.P2	: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 17.3.2011
	SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE RESPONDENTS CONCERNED.

¶34

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL -----------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

P.V.ASHA J.

--------------------------------------------

¶40

W.P.(C) No.8652 of 2011

¶41

--------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2016

¶42

J U D G M E N T

¶43

This writ petition is filed alleging that the 9^th respondent is carrying out unauthorised construction on the PWD road margin/road puramboke at Binanipuram, Edayar in front of the petitioner's factory and praying for a direction to the respondents 1 to 8 to take immediate steps to stop the same and to demolish the illegal construction.

¶44

The allegation in the writ petition was that the official respondents, respondents 1 to 8 were not taking any action against the encroachments effected on the PWD road margin. It was also alleged that the construction was being carried out without any permit from the Panchayath.

¶45

Additional 10^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations in the writ petition and questioning the locus standi of petitioner.

¶46

This Court had passed an interim order on 18.03.2011 directing that the respondents 2 to 8 shall

¶47

W.P.(C) No.8652 of 2011

¶48

¶49

ensure that the 9^th respondent is not permitted to proceed with the construction, if the same is illegal in any manner.

¶50

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that consequent to the interim order passed by this Court, no further construction is carried out. But, the construction already made in violation of law, remain there as such in Govt. property.

¶51

Learned Government Pleader on instructions submit that there is an encroachment on PWD road. However, no action is taken against the encroachment.

¶52

Under the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents 2 to 8 to take appropriate steps to remove the encroachment in Government property, in accordance with law, with notice to the parties within a period of 'three months' from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶53

This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶54

Sd/P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶55

AS/01/06/16

M/S. Toughglass India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Toughglass India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Kerala and Others

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

Rajeswari K. Vs Badagara Co-Op. Rural Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Madar English School Vs District Educational Officer and Others

Rahmathulla Noufal E and Others Vs the State of Kerala and Another

Padmini Chindan Vs the District Collector,Kasaragod

C.K.Krishnakumari Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Elizabeth @ Gracy Vs Deputy Director, Survey & Land Records