Dismissed

K.G.Muraleedhara Menon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Dec 2017WA/2234/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appellant challenged the Single Judge's order dismissing a writ petition seeking compensation for land acquisition. The appeal was dismissed as the High Court found the appeal unmeritorious, holding the appellant failed to prove title over 'puramboke' land and noted a pending civil title dispute.

What did the court decide?

Refusal to interfere with the impugned judgment of the Single Judge dismissing the original writ petition.

K.G.Muraleedhara Menon Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/17TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939 WA.No.2234 of 2017 IN WP(C)22780/2015 ----------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 22780/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 05-10-2017

¶5

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶6

K.G.MURALEEDHARA MENON AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.LATE ACHUTHAN PILLAI, LAKSHMISREE CHITHRAPUZHA, IRIMPANAM.P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.ABRAHAM P.GEORGE SRI.M.RAJENDRAN NAIR SMT.M.SANTHY SMT.M.D.BEENA

¶8

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶10

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD.

¶11

THE TAHASILDAR KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPPILLY SOUTH VILLAGE, EDAPPILLY P.O.

¶13

THE RAILWAY DIVISIONAL MANAGER (WORKS) SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THYKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE TAHASILDAR (LR) LAND ACQUISITION, KANAYANNUR TALUK. R BY SRI.A.DINESH RAO R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.ASIF

¶15

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

ANTONY DOMINIC, Ag.C.J. & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶17

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - Writ Appeal No.2234 of 2017

¶18

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8^th day of December 2017

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶21

Appellant initially filed W.P.(C)22780/15 seeking these reliefs:

¶22

a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ, order or direction commanding the 6^th respondent to proceed with further steps in pursuance to Ext.P5 notification in the matter of acquisition of 8.12 Ares of land in Sy.No.230/18B of Edappally South Village, owned by them by virtue of Partition Deed No.1051/1093 ME of SRO Alangad give adequate compensation affording petitioner and other co-owners to raise their claim in the matter of compensation as per permitted by law in the interest of justice.

¶23

Writ Appeal No.2234 of 2017

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

b) Allow entire cost of the proceedings to the petitioner.

¶26

On merits, the learned Single Judge, through the

¶27

impugned judgment dated 5^th October 2017, held that the appellant could not establish his right over the property and that the acquired property is a “puramboke” land. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this intra-court appeal.

¶28

The appellant’s counsel has strenuously contended that the petitioner placed ample evidence before the Court that he had succeeded to the property in question through a registered partition deed. Only could he have not the property mutated at the earliest because of certain technicalities, as is evident from the judgment in W.P.(C)28519 of 2013.

¶29

The learned counsel has also contended that neither the Government nor the Railways has ever claimed that the property belonged to it. Accordingly, he has urged us to reverse the

¶30

Writ Appeal No.2234 of 2017

¶31

: 3 :

¶32

impugned judgment and direct the Railway to pay adequate compensation to him for the land allegedly acquired.

¶33

The learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Railways have submitted that the judgment under appeal does not suffer from any legal infirmity. They also submitted that what the appellant has raised in the writ petition is a title dispute; this Court under Article 226 is ill-equipped to resolve that dispute.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Government Pleader, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent.

¶35

Indeed, the petitioner has claimed property through a registered partition deed—a document evidently executed by the members of a family, not capable of binding third parties. But the petitioner established no independent title to the property. Ext.P5 notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act

¶36

Writ Appeal No.2234 of 2017

¶37

: 4 :

¶38

describes the property as Government Puramboke. It is trite to observe that mutation, or even its absence, would not affect the

¶39

title. Hence the land holder assailing his title needs to establish it with cogent evidence.

¶40

As has been rightly held by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, the petitioner has been trying to establish title based on a notification issued in 2007, which contained no reference to the appellant’s title.

¶41

In these circumstances, we find no merit in the appellant’s contentions and, accordingly, refuse to interfere with the impugned judgment. But before parting, we do observe that as the petitioner claims title to the property, which is denied by the respondents, he may approach an appropriate forum—say, a civil court—to have it declared.

¶42

As a matter of abundant caution, at the request of the appellant’s counsel, we also clarify that any observations made in

¶43

Writ Appeal No.2234 of 2017

¶44

: 5 :

¶45

the impugned judgment or in this present disposition would not affect the appellant's claim to the property.

¶46

SD/-

¶47

ANTONY DOMINIC, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶48

SD/-

¶49

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE

¶50

jes

K.G.Muraleedhara Menon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.G.Muraleedhara Menon v. State of Kerala

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

M.K.Biju Vs T K Jose

Andrew Xavier Vs Corporation of Cochin

The Principal Vs Mikhael Joseph Paul

Jimmy Joseph Vs Sukumaran

State of Kerala Vs Janaki Amma

Mr.Sankara Narayanan P.A Vs Bank of Baroda