Dismissed

Muhammed v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Nov 2018WP(C)/17113/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Tahsildar to verify the ownership status of the alleged puramboke land by inspecting the property. Pending this report and the outcome of the pending civil suit regarding the boundary and construction, the revenue authorities were given specific directions on how to proceed regarding the alleged encroachment and building permit.

What did the court decide?

The 3rd respondent-Tahsildar directed to ascertain ownership of the land, furnish report and collect materials, accorde hearing to parties, and decide further action, coordinating with the Civil Court

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 17113 of 2017

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 MUHAMMED AGED:57 YEARS, S/O USMANKUTTY, ARAKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARUPADANNA, THRISSUR-680 670.

¶8

2 BASHEER

¶9

AGED:58 YEARS, S/O IBRAHIM, CHARUPEEDIKAYIL HOUSE, KARUPADANNA, THRISSUR-680670

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶13

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, 680001

¶14

3 THE TALUK TAHSILDAR MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA PO, THRISSUR-680121

¶15

4 THEKUMKARA VILLAGE OFFICER THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680001

¶16

5 THE VELLANGALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VELLANGALLOOR P O, THRISSUR-680001

¶17

6 P A IBRAHIMKUTTY AGGED 43 YEARS, S/O ABDUL MAJEED, PICHATHARA HOUSE, VALLIVATTOM VILLAGE, KARUPADANNA PO, THIRISSUR-680 670

¶18

W.P(C)No.17113 of 2017

¶19

¶20

7 ABDUL MAJEED AGED 71 YEARS S/O KUNJUMUHAMMED, VALLIVATTOM VILLAGE, KARUPADANNA PO, THRISSUR-680 670

¶21

8 KADEEJA AGED 60 YEARS, W/O ABDUL MAJEED, VALLIVATTOM VILLAGE, KARUPADANNA P O, THRISSUR-680 670.

¶22

9 SULAIMAN, AGED 64, S/O KUNJUMUHAMMED, PICHATHARA HOUSE, VALLIVATTOM VILLAGE, KARUPADANNA PO, THRISSUR-680 670

¶23

10 THE TALUK SURVEYOR MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK OFFICE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR680121

¶24

SRI.SAIGI JACOB PALATTY,SR.GOVT.PLEADER FOR R1 TO R4, SRI.RAJIT FOR R5, SRI.P.M.ABDUL JALEEL(KODUNGALLUR) FOR R6 TO R9

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

W.P(C)No.17113 of 2017

¶27

¶28

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶29

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

¶30

W.P(C)No.17113 of 2017

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2018

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The prayers in the aforecaptioned Writ Petition

¶35

(Civil) are as follows:

¶36

“i) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 2 to 5 to take up Exts P2, 4 and P5 and act upon the same in exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of the Kerala Land conservancy Act, 1957 to detect the river puramboke or any other puramboke after measurements are carried out and to remove the encroachment in exercise of the said power, within stipulated time limits in the interest of justice.

¶37

ii) To issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 5^th respondent to keep in abeyance the operation of Ext P6 building permit granted to the respondents 6 to 9 and if found necessary to cancel the same, in the interest of justice.

¶38

AND

¶39

iii)To pass any such or further orders as the petitioner may seek and this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant.”

¶40

2. Heard Sri.Sreekumar.G.Chelur, learned

¶41

counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri.Saigi

¶42

Jacob Palatty, learned Sr.Government Pleader

¶43

appearing for respondents 1 to 4 & 10, Sri.Rajit,

¶44

W.P(C)No.17113 of 2017

¶45

¶46

learned counsel appearing for R5-Vellangalloor Grama Panchayath & Sri.P.M.Abdul Jaleel, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents 6 to 9.

¶47

3. The petitioners would allege that 17 cents

¶48

of river puramboke land is illegally held in unauthorized possession of contesting respondents 6

¶49

to 9 and that the said puramboke encroachment has to be removed and all construction activities shall be kept in the hold till the measurements are effected etc.

¶50

4. It is in the light of these factual averments, that the petitioners has filed the instance Writ Petition (Civil) with the aforementioned prayers.

¶51

5. Contesting respondents 6 to 9 has filed a

¶52

counter affidavit dated 30.09.2018. The material

¶53

averments that contained in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the said counter affidavit of R-6 to R-9, which

¶54

reads as follows:

¶55

W.P(C)No.17113 of 2017

¶56

¶57

“3. These respondents had filed WP(C) 14204/2017 before this Hon'ble Court seeking issuance of Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, directing the police authorities to give necessary and adequate police protection and assistance to the them for keeping possession and peaceful enjoyment of the landed properties and for constructing compound wall in accordance with permit issued by the Vellangallur Gramapanchayath without any obstruction from the petitioners or their men.

¶58

4. This Hon'ble Court disposed the above Writ Petition directing these respondents to approach the Civil Court for appropriate remedy against the trespassers and obstructers. The true copy of the Judgment in WP(C) 14204/2017 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R6(a). In pursuance of the above judgment, the respondents 6 to 8 filed O.S.103/2018 before the Sub Court, Irinjalakuda for fixation of boundary of their property by survey measurement and for issuance of injunction against the petitioners and others from trespassing into their property and obstructing the construction of boundary wall therein. The true copy of plaint in O.S.103/2018 on the file of Sub Court, Irinjalkuda is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit R6(b).

¶59

5. It is respectfully submitted that the averments in the petitions, Exhibit P2 to P5 are vague and frivolous. These petitions does not specify the survey number or extent of the land allegedly included in the category of Purampokku land.”

¶60

6. The 3^rd respondent-Taluk Tahsildar has filed

¶61

a statement dated 19.09.2018 in this case, wherein it is stated in para.2 thereof as follows:

¶62

¶63

¶64

“2. It is submitted that the petitioners are aggrieved by actions of the respondent 6 to 9 in encroaching into Puramboke Land and there properties. They seeks expeditious actions under the Land Conservancy Act to effect the respondents 6 to 9 from river puramboke. As per directions in the interim order directions dated 18.07.2018. The Taluk Surveyor inspected the properties and filed a report. As per the report 0.0060 Hectares in Survey No.776 is Puramboke. The 6^th respondent is in possession of the same. As per Village records and BTR 0.0060 Hectares in Survey No.776 mentioned as Puramboke and another 0.0060 Hectare in the Survey No.766 is mentioned as sanitary department has belonging to sanitary department and in the BTR it is noted as sanitary road. Hence it is required to verify which department is in possession of the entire property. The Revenue Officers is contemplating action under the Land Conservancy Act, after ascertaining the extent of property in possession of each of the respondents 6 to 9. Hence the writ petition may be dismissed.”

¶65

7. From a reading of the statement of the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar it is seen that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court on 18.07.2018 in this case, the Taluk Surveyor had inspected the properties and filed a report, as per which 0.0060 Hectares of property in survey No.776 is Puramboke and the 6^th respondent is in possession of the same and that as per the village records and Basic Tax Register, 0.0060 Hectares in survey No.776 mentioned as Puramboke and another 0.0060 Hectare

¶66

¶67

¶68

in survey No.766 is mentioned as belonging to sanitary department and it is also mentioned in the BTR as “sanitary road” and that hence, it is requested to verify which is the department in possession of the entire property and that the revenue officers are contemplating action under the Land Conservancy Act and after ascertaining the extent of property in possession of each of the respondents 6 to 9 etc.

¶69

8. Having regard to the abovesaid aspects, it is ordered that the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar will take steps to ascertain as to whether the said Puramboke is vested with the Government or whether it is vested with any other authority like the 5^th respondent-Panchayath etc. Thereafter, the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar will furnish copy of the abovesaid report of the Taluk Surveyor mentioned in the abovesaid statement to the petitioners, R5-Panchayath & contesting respondents 6 to 9. So also, the details of the materials collected by the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar as to whether the property

¶70

¶71

¶72

is vested with the same or whether it is vested with some other authority like the Panchayath etc. should also be furnished to the abovesaid parties. The 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar will take an appropriate decision as to the further course of action will be taken for removal of the alleged encroachment etc. In that regard, the prior reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, R5-Panchayath & contesting respondents

¶73

6 to 9 should be given to them by the 3^rd respondent-Tahsildar or by any such competent authority, before they finalise any action in that regard. It is made clear that any such action that may be taken by the 3^rd respondent or such other competent authority will be subject to any interim orders or final verdict of the civil court in Ext.R6(b) civil suit, if the same has any material bearing to the proceedings to be finalised by the 3^rd respondent, as aforestated. The entire process in this regard should be duly completed by the 3^rd respondent or such other competent authority,

¶74

¶75

¶76

without much delay, preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶77

With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand disposed of.

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

vgd/15.11.18

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶85

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE WP(C) NO 14204 OF 2017 DATED 20/4/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE PETITIONERS AND OTHERS BEFORE THE VELLANGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 24/4/2017

¶86

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VELLANGALLUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 24/4/2017 EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 24/4/2017 BEFORE THE MUKUNDAPURAM TAHSILDAR. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 24/4/2017 BEFORE THE THEKUMKARA VILLAGE OFFICER EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENTS 6 TO 9 DATED 18/3/2017

¶87

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶88

EXHIBIT R6(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WO(C) 14204/2017 BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT R6(B) THE TRUE COPY OF PLAINT IN O.S.103/2018 ON THE FILE OF SUB COURT, IRINJALAKUDA.

Muhammed v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Charles K. Thomas Vs District Collector, Idukki

Abdul Rehman Vs the District Collector, Office of the District Collector, Painavu

Kunjumuhammed Vs State of Kerala

Padhmanabhan Cherikkalingal Vs the District Collector, Malappuram

Sindhu Satheesh Vs the State of Kerala

Shihabudheen Kolekkarath Vs the Village Officer