Dismissed

M.M. Aboobacker v. the District Collector

Kerala HC2 Jun 2017WP(C)/524/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner complained of delay in land conservancy proceedings against a 4th respondent for encroachment on river puramboke. Court held pending civil suit did not bar jurisdiction under Conservancy Act and directed conclusion of proceedings within 6 months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tahsildar to conclude land conservancy proceedings within six months from receipt of certified copy of the judgment and proceed with eviction.

M.M. Aboobacker Vs the District Collector — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2017/12TH JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

W.P(C).No.524 of 2016 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

M.M. ABOOBACKER, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.LATE VEERAN, TEACHER, MAMIYIL HOUSE, VAZHAYOOR PO, VAZHAYOOR VILLAGE, KONDOTTY TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 633.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.S.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI SRI.ANIL KUMAR M.SIVARAMAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶10

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶11

2. THE TAHSILDAR, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505.

¶12

3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VAZHAYOOR VILLAGE, KONDOTTY TALUK, VAZHAYOOR PO, PIN-673 633.

¶13

4. IBNU ABBAS, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.PUZHUTHINIPARA KALATHINGAL MOOSAKUTTY, ODINGILIL HOUSE, THIRUTHIYADU DESOM, AGRICULTURIST, VAZHYOOR PO, VAZHAYOOR VILLAGE, KONDOTTY TALUK, PIN-673 633. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR. R4 BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.) R4 BY ADV. SMT.MEENA.A. R4 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH R4 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.C.KIRAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.DEVESH R4 BY ADV. SRI.VINAY MATHEW JOSEPH.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P(C).No.524 of 2016 (M)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶18

P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 4-1-2012 SHOWING THE FACT THAT CHALIYAR RIVER IS UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, RECEIVED UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT.

¶19

P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF ADALATH DT 25-5-1997 P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAND STATEMENT OF PUZHA PURAMBOKE AT PRESENT AFTER THE ADALATH WAS OVER MAINTAINED BY THE SURVEY DEPARTMENT.

¶20

P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX PAID BY MOOSAKUTTY FOR THE LAND OBTAINED BY HIM IN THE ADALATH, 0.6515 HECTARE.

¶21

P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 3-4-2011 SENT BY THE SECRETARY, VAZHAYOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE TAHSILDAR, MANJERI.

¶22

P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 8-11-2010 SENT BY THE SECRETARY, VAZHAYOOR PANCHAYATH TO THE TALUK SURVEYOR, REQUESTING TO SURVEY THE LAND.

¶23

P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE IN B FORM RULE 9 ISSUED BY ADDL.TAHSILDAR, ERNAD.

¶24

P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.46/2012 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF COURT, PARAPPANANGADI.

¶25

P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST AND 4TH DEFENDANTS IN OS NO.46/2012.

¶26

P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY D2, D5 AND D6 FILED IN THE SUIT OS 46/2012.

¶27

P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION TO IMPLEAD FILED BY TWO OTHER INDIVIDUALS OF THE LOCALITY NAMELY OORAKATH BEERANKUTTY AND KEEZHMOOTHEDATH HARIS.

¶28

P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 CPC PASSED BY THE MUNSIFF, PARAPPANANGADI.

¶29

P13 : TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGISTER CONCERNED PAGE SHOWING THE DETAILS OF PUZHAPURAMBOKE.

¶30

W.P(C).No.524 of 2016 (M)

¶31

- 2 -

¶32

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶33

R4(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.03.2012 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C).6636/2012.
R4(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 4.4.2012 OF THE SUB COLLECTOR, PERINTHALMANNA.
R4(c)	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, DT.5.9.2012.
Vku/-	[ true copy ]

¶34

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶35

--------------------------------------------W.P(C) No.524 of 2016-M

¶36

---------------------------------------------Dated, this the 02^nd day of June, 2017

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

The petitioner is aggrieved with the pendency of the land conservancy case before the 2^nd respondent, Tahsildar.

¶39

The land conservancy case under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957 [for brevity “Conservancy Act”] was initiated by the 2^nd respondent against 4^th respondent for eviction from the alleged encroachment into the river puramboke. The petitioner's contention is that the Tahsildar is not taking any action and that the proceedings are unnecessarily delayed, causing prejudice to the State.

¶40

The 4^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which it has been stated that the Tahsildar had concluded the proceedings by order dated 24.02.2012, as is seen from Exhibit R4(c) appellate order. An appeal was filed before the Sub Collector, in which Exhibit R4(c) order was passed, remanding the matter to the Tahsildar. It is seen from Exhibit R4(c) that a suit, numbered as O.S.No.46/2012, is pending before the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi.

¶41

¶42

WP(C) No.524 of 2016

¶43

The learned Counsel for the petitioner also takes me through the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent, wherein it is stated that since O.S.No.46/2012 is pending before the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi, the Tahsildar cannot take further action.

¶44

The above contention of the 2^nd respondent is a wrong understanding of the provisions of the Conservancy Act. Going by Section 20A of the Conservancy Act, there is a bar of jurisdiction for the Civil Court to entertain a suit. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit is filed for a declaration. Whatever it be, the pendency of the suit would not in any manner fetter the power of the Tahsildar to proceed under the Conservancy Act.

¶45

In the above circumstances, it is directed that the land conservancy proceedings shall be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The further proceedings for eviction as per the orders shall also be proceeded with.

¶46

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

¶47

Sd/K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶48

vku/-

¶49

[ true copy ]

M.M. Aboobacker v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.M. Aboobacker v. the District Collector

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/S.Desai Homes Vs Haritha v Kumar

Volter Vs Sheela R.

E.T.Ashokan Vs the Secretary Ponnani Block Panchayath

Jaimol Saju Vs Sindhu P.Joseph

Fr. Thomas.a.Achandy Vs Ahamed Sageer

Roja P.K Vs Palakkad Municipality