Remanded

Krishnankutty Ammu v. Kottayam Municipality

Kerala HC16 Nov 2018WP(C)/3884/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition filed by a 73-year-old landless petitioner seeking allotment of 3 cents of land. The court directed the municipality to finalize proceedings within six months, noting registration charges would be borne by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Municipality to allot 3 cents of land and finalize proceedings within six months; directed petitioner to file an undertaking to pay registration charges.

Krishnankutty Ammu Vs Kottayam Municipality — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018 / 25TH KARTHIKA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 3884 of 2017

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

KRISHNANKUTTY AMMU S/O.LATE KESAVAN, AGED 73 YEARS, C/O. SUNIL MUKKATTU, KOLLAD .P.O., PANACHIKKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK BY ADV. SRI.P.KURUVILLA JACOB

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM-686001 2 THE SECRETARY KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM686001 3 THE CHAIRMAN KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE. KOTTAYAM -686001 4 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT(ROAD DIVISION), KOTTAYAM686001 5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ROADS DIVISION), KOTTAYAM686001 6 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM-686001

¶10

ADDL.R7 TAHSILDAR KOTTAYAM.

¶11

ADDL.R8 VILLAGE OFFICER NATTAKOM. BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY, SC, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY

¶12

R4 TO R7 SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.11.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 3884 of 2017

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶18

“I) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents 1 to 3, directing them to allot/assign expeditiously the 3 cents of land to petitioner for rehabilitating him and his wife, in compliance with the decision taken by the Kottayam Municipal Council on 25.1.2012 as evident from Ext.P6 document.

¶19

ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to 2^nd respondent, directing to consider and dispose Ext.P9 representation expeditiously within a specific period, and redressing the grievances highlighted in that representation.

¶20

And

¶21

iii) to issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of this case, including the costs of the petitioner in this proceeding.”

¶22

According to the petitioner, petitioner is a landless

¶23

citizen now aged 73 years. He was staying in a small house built in

¶24

the road puramboke in front of the residential property of the

¶25

¶26

WP(C).No. 3884 of 2017

¶27

petitioners in Ext.P1 judgment. The said house was numbered by the Nattakam Grama Panchayat, which got amalgamated with Kottayam Municipality on and with effect from 1.11.2010. Petitioner got electric connection to the aforesaid house in his own name. Petitioner and two other nearby residents of the same road puramboke were evicted as per the direction in Ext.P1 judgment. However, the respondents in that judgment took the stand that petitioner and two other neighbouring encroachers will be rehabilitated, in case they are evicted from the respective road puramboke in Ext.P3 order also. Accordingly, this Court expressed the necessity to rehabilitate petitioner and other affected persons. Petitioner was evicted from his residential premises during the year 2012. Meanwhile, the Kottayam Municipal Council took decision on 25.1.2012 to allot 3 cents of land at Pallom locality to rehabilitate petitioner and his wife. However, no further action was initiated in order to transform the decision into a reality. It is in this background this writ petition is filed.

¶28

A counter affidavit is filed by the 7^th respondent, Tahsildar (LR), Kottayam, wherein among other contentions, it is stated that, 2^nd respondent, i.e. Secretary of the Kottayam

¶29

WP(C).No. 3884 of 2017

¶30

¶31

Municipality` has not sought any assistance from the respondent to identify or demarcate any land proposed to be allotted to the petitioner. Therefore, no such direction could be given to the additional 8^th respondent, i.e.Village Officer, Nattakam. It is also pointed out that 7^th respondent is ready and willing to extent any help to the Municipal authorities to identify and demarcate the land, which is decided by them for allotment to the petitioner, if a communication is issued by the Municipal authorities. These are the basic background facts available before this Court in order to consider the reliefs specified above.

¶32

Learned Counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that, if the petitioner is willing to pay the registration charges on account of the property, i.e. proposed to be assigned in favour of the petitioner, the Municipality is ready to go ahead with the action already taken by the Municipal Committee. However, it is also pointed out that in view of the inhibitions contained under the Kerala Municipality (Acquisition and Disposal of Property) Rules, 2000, necessary references will have to be made to the State Government seeking permission for transferring the

¶33

WP(C).No. 3884 of 2017

¶34

¶35

property. I find force in the said contention, since there is a clear prohibition contained as per Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules. In that view of the matter, learned Counsel for the Municipality sought six months time to adjudicate and finalise the proceedings.

¶36

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Municipality to take adequate actions, in order to implement the decision taken by the Municipality to provide three cents of land to the petitioner. Petitioner is also directed to file an affidavit before the Secretary of the Municipality, undertaking to pay the registration charges on account of the property proposed to be assigned in favour of the petitioner, at the earliest and at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Immediately on receipt of the affidavit, the Municipality shall forward necessary communication to the State Government, at the earliest and at any rate within a further period of three weeks and finalise the proceedings at the earliest and at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. I also observe that if any communication is received from the Municipality, in accordance with the observations and directions contained above, the State Government shall take

¶37

WP(C).No. 3884 of 2017

¶38

¶39

adequate steps to process the same in order to implement the directions issued by this Court as above.

¶40

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/

SHAJI P.CHALY

JUDGE

Jm/

WP(C).No. 3884 of 2017

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COMPUTER PRINT OF JUDGMENT DATED 25.7.2011 IN W.P.(C) 6507/2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶50

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 27.10.11 OF 4TH RESPONDENT COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.1.2012 IN W.A NO 1798/201 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT'S LETTER DATED 17.2.2012 COMMUNICATED TO PETITIONER EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED 25.1.2012 COMMUNICATED TO 3RD RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONERS LETTER DATED 18.2.12 COMMUNICATED TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶51

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENTS LETTER DATED 13.2.12 ACCOMPANIED BY THE DECISION TAKEN IN ITEM 55 OF THE MEETING OF THE KOTTAYAM MUNCIPAL COUNCIL HELD ON 25.1.12 COMMUNICATED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶52

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S LETTER DATED 17.3.14 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S KETTER DATED 27.10.14SUBMITTED BEFRE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S REGISTERED COMPLAINT DATED 5.12.16 FORWARDED TO 2ND RESPONDENT BY SPEED POST.

Krishnankutty Ammu v. Kottayam Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnankutty Ammu v. Kottayam Municipality

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

Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Soukar Masjid Committee

M.Jayachandran Vs State of Kerala

Jojo George Vs the Vazhappally Grama Panchayath

Sabu Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Kunheethu Haji Vs the Ozhur Grama Panchayath

Malabar Sand and Stones Pvt.Ltd Vs Union of India