Held that a writ petition challenging reduction of road width based on easement rights cannot be finally decided. Directed petitioners to file a civil suit to prove claims of easement and title. Extended existing interim stay order.
Intim of extending the interim stay order for one month and directing petitioners to file a civil suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH 2017/30TH PHALGUNA, 1938
WP(C).No. 132 of 2017 (N)
PETITIONER(S):
1. SUBAIR KUTTY
2. KHADEEJA UMMA
3. THAJUDEEN P.H.
4. SHAMI SALAM
BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001.
3. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM- 691013.
4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KOLLAM – 691013.
5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY
6. TAHSILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KARUNAGAPPALLY – 690518.
7. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHAVARA, KOLLAM – 690512.
8. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THEKKUMBHAGOM, KOLLAM -691518.
R BY ADV. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21-032017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 132 of 2017 (N)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXT P1 : | TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF 1ST PETITIONER'S SON SHANAVAS DATED 8-3-2013 BEARING NO.434 OF KARUNAGAPPALLY SUB REGISTRY OFFICE. |
|---|---|
| EXT P2 : | TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 2-12-2016. |
| EXT P3 : |
TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 7-5-1992. |
| EXT P4 : |
TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY OF 2ND PETITIONER DATED 3-8-2016. |
| EXT P5 : | TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD. |
| EXT P6 : | TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 2-2-2015. |
| EXT P7 : | TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD OF 3RD PETITIONER'S FAMILY. |
| EXT P8 : |
TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT IN FAVOUR OF THE MOTHER IN LAW OF 4TH PETITIONER. |
| EXT P9 : | TRUE COPY OF THE RATION CARD OF THE FAMILY OF 4TH RESPONDENT. |
| EXT P10 : | TRUE COPY OF THE 4 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PUBLIC DRAINAGE WAY LEADING TO THE PROPERTIES OF PETITIONERS POLICE STATION AND THE COMPOUND WALL ON THE EASTERN SIDE. |
| EXT P11 : | TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE AND LOCATION OF THE PROPERTIES AND WAY. |
| RESPONDE | NT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL |
//True Copy //
P.A. To Judge
rmm
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
W.P.(C).No.132 of 2017
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2017
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed by the petitioners allegedly aggrieved by the attempts of respondents 7 and 8 in reducing the width of way of access leading to the residential properties of the petitioners from the southern public road at Pullikkadu Junction in Karunagapally Taluk. Which according to the petitioners, is based on the retaliation of the request of the 1st petitioner to remove the seized vehicles kept in the property of the son of 1st petitioner, situated on the northern side of Police Station property. It is also stated that petitioners are afraid of filing even a representation before the other respondents apprehending that respondents 7 and 8 with the tacit support of certain vested interests may block the way by constructing compound wall reducing the width of way from the existing 4½ meters to 1½. It is also stated that respondents have no manner of right or authority to keep the seized vehicle inside the property of petitioner's son.
W.P.(C)No. 132 of 2017 2
Photographs are produced to establish the case put forth by the petitioner. Going by the pleadings contained in the writ petition, one thing is clear that the claim raised by the petitioners is on the basis of the easement enjoyed by the petitioners and their predecessors in interest for more than 100 years.
W.P.(C)No. 132 of 2017 3
produced, I am unable to attain any finality to the claims raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. Petitioners have to necessarily adduce evidence and prove before the court, the right of easement if any accrued and this Court is not expected to consider such contentions and arrive at a definite finding with respect to the factual circumstances put forth by the petitioners. That being the situation, I think it is only appropriate that the petitioners are relegated to the Civil Court by issuing appropriate directions.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE
rmm/22/3/2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can adjudicate the claim for easement in the writ petition or if it must be tried in a Civil Court.
Whether the claim for reduction of road width warrants interference of the High Court under Article 226.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Subair Kutty and others
State of Kerala and others
Shaji P. Chaly
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
