Disposed

Baiju Joseph v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Jul 2017WP(C)/3788/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala held that the fifth respondent must identify encroachments with reference to survey records within three months. If encroachments are found, the fifth respondent must remove them within a further three months.

What did the court decide?

Directive to the fifth respondent to identify encroachments within three months and remove them within a further three months if found.

Baiju Joseph Vs the State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2017/16TH ASHADHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 3788 of 2012 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

BAIJU JOSEPH, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O. P.V.JOSEPH, PARAKKAL HOUSE, AARAMKKALLU PATTIKKAD.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 652.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 003.

¶12

3. THE TAHASILDAR, THRISSUR TALUK, PALACE ROAD, OPP. TOWN HALL, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 020.

¶13

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, THRISSUR, CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 020.

¶14

5. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION, PEECHY, PEECHY.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 653.

¶15

6. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 013.

¶16

7. THE PANANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE PANANCHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PATTIKKAD.P.O.,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 652.

¶17

..2/-

¶18

..2..

¶19

WP(C).No. 3788 of 2012 (W)

¶20

8. HARIDRAMAN, S/O. MAKKAYI, PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, ARAMKKALLU, PATTIKKAD.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 652.

¶21

9. LEELA, VADERIKKATTIL HOUSE, ARAMKKALLU, PATTIKKADU.P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 652.

¶22

R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. RON BASTIAN R7 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN R7 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.DEVADAS R8 BY ADVS. SRI.S.K.AJAY KUMAR SMT.PRIYA. H. SRI.M.R.ARUN R9 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.SHEEJA

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

Msd.

¶25

WP(C).No. 3788 of 2012 (W)

¶26

APPENDIX

¶27

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶28

EXT.P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 20-12-2010.
EXT.P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 20-12-2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07-02-2012 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 28-01-2011 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1132/2011 AND DOWN LOADED THROUGH INTERNET.
EXT.P9	THE TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE IN L.A.C.NO. 702/09 OF THE SPECIAL THAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITIONS THRISSUR.
EXT.P10	THE TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTE IN L.A.C.NO. 704/2009 OF THE SPECIAL THAHSILDAR LAND ACQUISITION THRISSUR.
EXT.P11	THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED 07.03.2012 OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH.

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶30

EXHIBIT R8(A):	TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA ISSUED BY THE LAND
	TRIBUNAL, OLLUKKARA.
EXHIBIT R8(B):	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPUTY
	COLLECTOR, NHDP, THRISSUR.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶35

=========================

¶36

W.P.(C).No.3788/2012

¶37

¶38

Dated this the 7^th day of July, 2017

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

The petitioner approached this court alleging that the respondents 1 to 7 are not taking action against respondents 8 and 9 as against illegal encroachment made by them. In paras.5 and 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent it is stated as follows:

¶41

“5. It is hereby submitted that subsequent to the inspection conducted by this respondent, it was found that the alleged encroachment is not clearly identifiable. Hence this respondent requested the Taluk Surveyor and Tahsildar to take necessary steps for measuring out of the property so as to ascertain, the encroachment. Only after measurement of the property by the Survey Officials/Revenue Officials the proceedings for eviction can be initiated. Now this respondent is awaiting the report from the Taluk Surveyor as well as the Tahsildar.

¶42

It is hereby submitted that this respondent will take all positive steps for evicting the encroachment if it is

¶43

WPC 3788/2012 -:2:-

¶44

found that the 8^th and 9^th respondents trespassed into the property of the Irrigation Department.”

¶45

In the light of the above, there shall be a direction to the fifth respondent to identify the encroachments, if any, with reference to the survey records within a period of three months and if it is found that there are encroachments, certainly, action shall be taken to remove the same, at any rate, within a further period of three months, in accordance with law.

¶46

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶49

Baiju Joseph v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baiju Joseph v. the State of Kerala

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

M/S.Bristo Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Thomas Vs the Custodian of Ecologically Fragile

Prasanna Vs the State of Kerala

Tom Sunil Xavier Vs K.S.E.B.

Devassia Nedumpara and Others Vs the Principal Secretary,Govt.of India

Sainudheen Vs the Sub Inspector of Police,Vadakkekkadu