Dismissed

V.E.Kabeer v. the Deputy Director of Panchayats

Kerala HC20 Sept 2017WP(C)/20599/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition challenging inaction by the Secretary of Vadakkencherry Grama Panchayath in removal proceedings against specific respondents regarding alleged encroachment of a Panchayat road, directing completion within two months after a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Sixth Respondent to conclude proceedings within two months after a further opportunity of hearing and identifying the land anew.

V.E.Kabeer Vs the Deputy Director of Panchayats — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/29TH BHADRA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 20599 of 2017 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. V.E. KABEER, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. LATE IBRAHIM, MANAPPATTUPOTTA, MANGALAMPALAM, ANJUMOORTHY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶8

2. VARGHESE, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.PHILIPOSE, MANAPPATTUPOTTA, MANGALAMPALAM, ANJUMOORTHY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶9

3. SURESH,

¶10

AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNAN, MANAPPATTUPOTTA, MANGALAMPALAM, ANJUMOORTHY, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶12

RESPONDENT(S):

¶13

1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD- 678 001.

¶14

2. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD- 678 001.

¶15

3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD- 678 541.

¶16

4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VADAKKENCHERRY-II VILLAGE, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD- 678 506.

¶17

WP(C).No. 20599 of 2017 (Y)

¶18

5. VADAKKENCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VADAKKENCHERRY. P.O., PALAKKAD- 678 506, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶19

6. THE SECRETARY, VADAKKENCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VADAKKENCHERRY. P.O., PALAKKAD- 678 506.

¶20

7. KUMARAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. KUNJU, MANAPPATTUPOTTA, MANGALAMPALAM, ANJUMOORTHIMANGALAM. P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKAD- 678 682.

¶21

8. AMMU, AGED 65 YEARS, W/O. LATE APPU, MANAPPATTUPOTTA, MANGALAMPALAM, ANJUMOORTHIMANGALAM. P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKAD- 678 682.

¶22

9. MOHAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. LATE APPU, MANAPPATTUPOTTA, MANGALAMPALAM, ANJUMOORTHIMANGALAM. P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKAD- 678 682.

¶23

10. SUMITHRA, AGED 39 YEARS, D/O. LATE APPU, MANAPPATTUPOTTA, MANGALAMPALAM, ANJUMOORTHIMANGALAM. P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKAD- 678 682.

¶24

11. SUNITHA, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O. LATE APPU, MANAPPATTUPOTTA, MANGALAMPALAM, ANJUMOORTHIMANGALAM.P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKAD- 678 682.

¶25

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.SANTHOSH PETER. R7 TO R11 BY ADVS. SRI.SAJAN VARGHEESE K., SRI.LIJU. M.P., SRI.ABE RAJAN.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

rs.

¶28

WP(C).No. 20599 of 2017 (Y)

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶31

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 08.06.2017 ISSUED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER

¶32

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 08.06.2017 ISSUED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER

¶33

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 09.06.2017 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶34

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 04.05.2015 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶35

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH DATED 13.08.2015 PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR.

¶36

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 19.09.2016 ALONG WITH THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶37

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER OF RE.SY.NO.319/3 OF VADAKKENCERRY-II, VILLAGE.

¶38

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 29.09.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶39

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶40

EXT.R7A	COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18/03/2015 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO 9TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.R7B	COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24/03/2015 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.R7C	COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03/07/2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE 9TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.R7D	COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 07/07/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.R7E	COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 03/07/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.R7F	COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 10/07/2017. //TRUE COPY//

¶41

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶42

rs.

¶43

P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J.

¶44

-------------------------------------------W.P.(C).No.20599 of 2017

¶45

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

¶46

Dated this the 20^th day of September, 2017 J U D G M E N T

¶47

Ext.R7(a) is a notice issued by the sixth respondent to the ninth respondent invoking the provisions contained in the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Removal of Encroachment and imposition and Recovery of Penalty for unauthorized occupation) Rules 1996 (the Rules) alleging that he is in unauthorized occupation of a portion of the Panchayat road. Similar notices have been issued by the sixth respondent to respondents 7, 8, 10 and 11 also. Ext.R7(b) is the reply sent by the ninth respondent in response to Ext.R7(a) notice. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition concerns the inaction on the part of the sixth respondent in completing the proceedings initiated against respondents 7 to 11

¶48

W.P.(c).No.20599 of 2017

¶49

: 2 :

¶50

pursuant to Ext.R7(a) and similar notices.

¶51

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

¶52

the learned Government Pleader as also the learned counsel for respondents 7 to 11.

¶53

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the sixth respondent to take a final decision in the proceedings commenced by issuing Ext.R7(a) notice in accordance with the Rules, after affording respondents 7 to 11 a further opportunity of hearing. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that if required, the land alleged to have been encroached upon by respondents 7 to 11 shall be identified once again in the presence of the parties.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

rsr

(true copy)

V.E.Kabeer v. the Deputy Director of Panchayats

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.E.Kabeer v. the Deputy Director of Panchayats

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

Hamid Yaffi Vs Sindhu N.B

The Special Tahsildar (La) Vs Radhakrishnan

Cicy Joseph Vs District Collector

P.Mohanan Vs Hydru E.K

Dr.N.Veeramanikandan Vs Jyothikumar

Dyne I.U. Vs the Principal Secretary to Government (Revenue)