Allowed

P.K.Ravi, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC31 Oct 2018WP(C)/35468/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking quashing of orders and directing the District Collector to consider a representation for LIFE scheme inclusion before eviction. The Court directed the Collector to consider the representation without delay after hearing the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directed the District Collector (Respondent No.2) to consider the petitioner's representation (Ex.P13) for LIFE scheme inclusion without delay after hearing the petitioner.

P.K.Ravi, 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

WEDNESDAY,THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 9TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 35468 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

P.K.RAVI, AGED 51 YEARS S/O.KAMALAKSHI, PULLATT HOUSE, HOUSE NO.336, WARD NO.10, THEKKUMKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUNDUKAD P.O., THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR - 680 028.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN SRI.MANU VYASAN PETER SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN SRI.SABU GEORGE

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶11

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, FIRST FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL LINES RD, KALYAN NAGAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, KERALA-680003.

¶12

3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SUB DIVISION, THALAPPILLY, KUMARANELLOOR P.O., WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR-680590.

¶13

4 THE THEKKUMKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THEKKUMKARA, THRISSUR-680608.

¶14

WP(C).No. 35468 of 2018 2

¶15

5 NIXON C.J., AGED 36 YEARS S/O JOSE, CHITTILAPPALLY, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE, KUNDUKAD P.O., THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR-680028.

¶16

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.B.VINITHA

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No. 35468 of 2018 3

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following prayers:-

¶22

1. issue a Writ of certiorari calling for the records relating to Ext.P11 and quash the same.

¶23

2. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order in the nature thereof directing Respondent No.2 to consider Ext.P13 representation within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court after hearing the petitioner.

¶24

3. issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order in the nature thereof directing Respondent No.3 to keep all the proceeding under the Land Conservancy Act pursuant to Ext.P11 in abeyance.

¶25

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

¶26

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to a judgment of this Court, action is being taken against the petitioner for eviction. It is submitted that petitioner has submitted Ext.P13 representation before the District Collector wherein, it is stated that an application under

¶27

WP(C).No. 35468 of 2018 4

¶28

the LIFE (Livelihood Inclusion and Financial Empowerment) Scheme is submitted. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had been staying in the property in question for several years and that he has no other land of his own. It is therefore contended that till orders on the representation preferred by the petitioner for inclusion in the LIFE scheme are passed, petitioner may not be evicted.

¶29

The learned Government Pleader submits that it is not in dispute that the land in question is a road puramboke and that the petitioner has no title to the same. It is stated that all possible accommodation has been granted to the petitioner for the purpose of vacating the premises in question and that no further direction can be issued in the matter. It is also brought to my notice that this Court in Ext.P12 judgment had also directed the respondents to take appropriate action in the matter of removal of encroachments.

¶30

In the facts of the instant case, there can be no interdiction against the steps taken by the respondents. However, since Ext.P13 representation is filed by the petitioner before the 2^nd respondent, the 2^nd respondent shall take up,

¶31

WP(C).No. 35468 of 2018 5

¶32

consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P13 representation without delay after hearing the petitioner also.

¶33

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

rmm

WP(C).No. 35468 of 2018 6

¶39

APPENDIX

¶40

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶41

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE FRONT PAGE OF THE RATION CARD
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, DATED 21.5.1998 TO KAMALAKSHY
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARD ISSUED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA, DATED 21.5.1998 TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE 1ST PAGE OF THE SSL CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD ISSUED BY THE UNIQUE IDENTIFICATION AUTHORITY OF INDIA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14.3.2018 ISSUED BY KSEB IN THE NAME OF KAMALAKSHY
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PASSPORT OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 23.8.2017 UNDER THE KERALA LAND CONSERVANCY RULES ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14.9.2017 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.8.2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 3.8.2018 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 3.8.2018 IN WPC.24937/2018
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED

¶42

WP(C).No. 35468 of 2018 7

¶43

6.8.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.2 ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT

¶44

EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE HOUSE OF THE PETITIONER

¶45

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL

¶46

// TRUE COPY //

¶47

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.K.Ravi, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.Ravi, 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

Muhammed Shakeer.M Vs the District Collector, Malappuram

American Engineering Consultancy Vs District Collector

M/S. Priya Rubber Estates & Plantations (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

Soumya Vs Saju George

Radhakrishnan Vs the Station House Officer, North Paravur Police Station

Jancy Martin Vs the District Collector