Partly allowed

Mathew v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Oct 2018WP(C)/15142/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala, in a writ petition, directed the 2nd respondent (District Collector) to consider the petitioner's representation concerning property encroachment for road implementation and pass appropriate orders within three months.

What did the court decide?

1. Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on grievances regarding property encroachment and pass appropriate orders. 2. Orders to be passed within three months of

Mathew Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 4TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 15142 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

MATHEW

¶8

AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY,THURUTHAL PUTHANPURA VEEDU, PIRAMADOM P.O, PAMPAKUDA, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686 667. BY ADVS. SRI.R.DIVAKARAN SRI.BINOI GEORGE (CHERUKARA)

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CIVIL STATION,KAKKANADU - 682 030.

¶12

3 TAHSILDAR MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK OFFICE,MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN-686 661.

¶13

4 PAMPAKUDA GRAMA PANCHAYAT PAMPAKUDA, MUVATTUPUZHA -686 667,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

5 PAMPAKUDA BLOCK PANCHAYAT ONAKKOOR, ANCHELPETTY, PIN -686 667,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

6 CHIEF ENGINEER KERALA STATE RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,5TH FLOOR, SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANDANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

¶16

7 THE EXECUTVIE ENGINEER KERALA STATE RURAL ROADS DEVELOPMENT AGENCY,KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM-682 030.

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

PRINCY XAVIER. GEORGE SEBASTIAN, SC

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No. 15142 of 2018

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶24

“i. issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to fix the fair value of the property encroached by the respondent belongs to the petitioner for the implementation of package No.K.R.02.39., Arikkal South Piramadom Road.

¶25

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to consider the Exhibit P7 representation and pass appropriate orders with time frame.”

¶26

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

¶27

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P7 representation has been preferred by the petitioner before the 2^nd respondent pointing out his grievances and that orders may be directed to be passed thereon.

¶28

In the above view of the matter, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P7 representation

¶29

WP(C).No. 15142 of 2018

¶30

¶31

preferred by the petitioner with notice to the petitioner as well. Orders shall be passed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

sab ANU SIVARAMAN

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 18.04.2018 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 18.04.2018 EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 19.04.2018 EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.04.2018 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAMAMANGALAM DATED 21.04.2018 EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT DATED 17.04.2018 EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION ON 23.04.2018. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE sab

Mathew v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mathew v. 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

V.P.Asokan Vs Commissioner of Excise

K.Sridharan Vs Excise Commissioner

Rajan T.V. Vs State of Kerala

Narankulangara Kallyani Vs the Special Tahsildar (La)

R.Sankara Narayanan Vs the Kerala Water Authority

Gopinath v. Vs State of Kerala