Partly allowed

Uliyannurkari Padasekharam Group Farm Samithi v. the Puncha Special Officer

Kerala HC4 Dec 2017WP(C)/25141/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought restoration of water flow for paddy cultivation via a blocked canal. Court held that since the canal's exact alignment was not on record, the District Collector's order for a fresh survey did not require judicial interference under Article 226. The writ petition was disposed of with directions to implement the survey within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to ensure the survey order (Ext.P9) is implemented by respective respondents within three months of receipt of this judgment.

Uliyannurkari Padasekharam Group Farm Samithi Vs the Puncha… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR

¶4

MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/13TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 25141 of 2017 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ULIYANNURKARI PADASEKHARAM GROUP FARM SAMITHI ARPUKARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND CONVENOR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE PUNCHA SPECIAL OFFICER KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 002.

¶12

3. SAJI., KALLUKANDATHIL, ARPUKARA WEST P.O., PIN-686 008.

¶13

4. SHAJI KALLUKANDATHIL, ARPUKARA WEST P.O., PIN-686 008.

¶14

5. SIBI VARGHESE., MARANGATT, ARPUKARA WEST P.O., PIN-686 008.

¶15

R1, R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL R5 BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sdr/-

¶18

WP(C).No. 25141 of 2017 (P)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23.1.2016.

¶22

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P[C]NO.18612/2016 DATED 9.8.2016.

¶23

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN R.P.NO.855/2016 IN W.P[C]NO.18612/2016 DATED 29.9.2016.

¶24

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P[C]NO.30894/2016 DATED 26.10.2016.

¶25

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 24.11.2016 TO THE PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5.

¶26

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 DATED 22.12.2016.

¶27

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.11.2016.

¶28

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 DATED 11.1.2017.

¶29

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.3.2017.

¶30

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7.4.2017.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

sdr/-

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

¶37

W.P.(C). No. 25141 of 2017(P) ===================================================== Dated this the 4^th day of December, 2017

¶38

JUDGMENT

¶39

The petitioner has approached this Court essentially seeking a restoration of the flow of water through a canal passing through the property of respondents 3 to 5 to the paddy field owned by the petitioner. In the writ petition, it is alleged that there was earlier, a canal that passed through the property of respondents 3 to 5, which had been blocked by the said respondents, leading to a situation where the petitioner was not getting water for the purposes of his paddy cultivation. It is pointed out that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to remove the obstructions caused, and pursuant to the directions of this Court, steps have now been taken by the District Collector to have a survey of the area done, so as to identify the route/alignment through which the water channel was passing through the property of respondents 3 to 5. The apprehension of the petitioner at the time of filing the writ petition was that the direction of the District Collector to call for a fresh sketch was a delaying tactic so as to avoid taking a decision in respect of the directions that were given by this Court in Ext.P2

¶40

-2-

¶41

W.P.(C). No. 25141 of 2017(P)

¶42

judgment.

¶43

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for 5^th respondent as also the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents 1 and 2.

¶44

On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that although the petitioner has a case that there was a water channel passing through the property of respondents 3 to 5, there is nothing on record to indicate the alignment/route of the water channel in the property stated to be belonging to respondents 3 to 5. It was under these circumstances, that the District Collector, who was called upon to consider the matter and pass orders, thought it fit to insist on a sketch from the Taluk Surveyor as a precondition for passing orders regarding the restoration of the flow of water through the water channel for the benefit of the petitioner. On a perusal of Ext.P9 order, I am of the view that the same does not require any interference by this Court in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said order, if

¶45

-3-

¶46

W.P.(C). No. 25141 of 2017(P)

¶47

implemented within a specified time limit, would ensure that the petitioner would get water through the property of respondents 3 to 5. Accordingly, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 2^nd respondent to ensure that the directions in Ext.P9 order are implemented by the respective respondents within an outer time limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE

¶50

das/ 4.12.2017

Uliyannurkari Padasekharam Group Farm Samithi v. the Puncha Special Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uliyannurkari Padasekharam Group Farm Samithi v. the Puncha Special Officer

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

Prakash G. Nair Vs the Dhanalaxmi Bank

Tomy Mathew Vs Dhanlaxmi Bank

James P.J Vs State of Kerala

Dijoe Darvin Vs Vijith

Ramees K. Vs Kathirur Grama Panchayath

Buhari Vs the Village Officer