Dismissed

Roy T.T. v. Ramangalam Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC21 Jun 2019WA/294/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench dismissed three writ appeals arising from judgments concerning a dispute over whether a public road via the property of M/s Matha Granites existed. The Court held that factual issues regarding land and road existence require civil trial, reserved liberty to litigants, and cautioned against treating single-judge observations as binding.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals dismissed with liberty to approach civil court for declaratory reliefs and to challenge quarrying licenses.

Roy T.T. Vs Ramangalam Grama Panchayath — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶7

WA.No.2425 of 2018

¶8

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2018 IN WP(C) 8813/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶9

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶10

ROY T.T., AGED 39 YEARS S/O THOMAS, RESIDING AT THANDUM PURATH HOUSE, OORAMANA P.O., RAMAMANGALAM-686663, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJEMIN

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1-5 & ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 6TH & 7TH:

¶13

1 RAMAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE RAMAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RAMAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 663.

¶14

2 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM - 682 030

¶15

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MEMURI, PAMPAKKUDA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-686 667.

¶16

4 K.S. PAULOSE, MANAGING PARTNER, MATHA GRANITES, OORAMANA P.O., RAMAMANGALAM-686663, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶17

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶18

294/2019 & 216/2019 2

¶19

5 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD DISTRICT OFFICE (ERNAKULAM-II), PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542

¶20

6 P. VARGHESE, PULLIATTU HOUSE, OORAMANA (POST), RAMAMANGALAM (VIA), MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK PIN-686663.

¶21

7 THE TALUK SURVEYOR, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 663 R1 BY SRI.JIBU.P.THOMAS R2, R3 & R7 BY SRI.SYAMJI RAM, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 BY SRI.JOBY JOSE KONDODY SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH R5 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC R6 BY SRI.C.VATHSALAN SMT.THUSHARA.V SRI.JUSTINE JACOB SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR

¶22

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.216/2019, WA.294/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.A.Nos.2425/2018, 294/2019 & 216/2019 3

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶25

PRESENT

¶26

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶27

¶28

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶29

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶30

WA.No.216 of 2019

¶31

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2018 IN WP(C) 13096/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶32

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶33

P.VARGHESE, AGED 74 YEARS PULLIATTU HOUSE, OORAMANA (POST), RAMAMANGALAM (VIA), MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, PIN 686 663.

¶34

BY ADVS. SRI.C.VATHSALAN SMT.THUSHARA.V SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN

¶35

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C).:

¶36

1 RAMAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAGTH, P.O RAMAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 663, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶37

2 DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF MINING AND GEOLOGY, DISTRICT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 030

¶38

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶39

294/2019 & 216/2019 4

¶40

3 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, DISTRICT OFFICE (ERNAKULAM II) PERUMBAVOOR, PIN 683542.

¶41

4 VILLAGE OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PAMPAKKUDA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 667.

¶42

5 MATHA GRANITES, OORAMANA (POST), RAMAMANGALAM, PIN 686 663, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.S POULOSE.

¶43

6 THE TALUK SURVEYOR, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 661

¶44

BY ADVS. R1 SRI.K.S.ARUN KUMAR SRI.JUSTINE JACOB R2, R4 & R6 BY SRI.SYAMJI RAM, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R3 BY SRI.T.NAVEEN, SC, R5 BY SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH

¶45

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.294/2019, WA.2425/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶46

W.A.Nos.2425/2018, 294/2019 & 216/2019 5

¶47

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶48

PRESENT

¶49

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶50

¶51

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶52

FRIDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 31ST JYAISHTA, 1941

¶53

WA.No.294 of 2019

¶54

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2018 IN WP(C) 6661/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶55

APPELLANT/(THIRD PARTY):

¶56

ROY T.T. AGED 39 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT THANDUMPURATH HOUSE, OORAMANA P.O., RAMAMANGALAM 686663, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶57

BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJEMIN

¶58

RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 -6:

¶59

1 RAMAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE RAMAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RAMAMANGALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686 663.

¶60

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, KAKKANADU P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 030.

¶61

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶62

294/2019 & 216/2019 6

¶63

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686 661. 4 THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686 661. 5 THE TALUK SURVEYOR TALUK OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA, PIN - 686 661. 6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER VILLAGE OFFICE, RAMAMANGALAM, PIN - 686 663. 7 M/S. MATHA GRANITES OORAMANA P.O., RAMAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.S.PAULOSE, AGED 48, S/O.SCARIA, PIN-686 730. R1 BY SRI.JIBU.P.THOMAS R2 - R6 BY SRI.SYAMJI RAM, GOVERNMENT PLEADER R7 BY ADV. SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH

¶64

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.06.2019, ALONG WITH WA.216/2019, WA.2425/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶65

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶66

294/2019 & 216/2019 7

¶67

C.K. ABDUL REHIM

¶68

¶69

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, JJ.

¶70

--------------------------------------------

¶71

W.A No. 2425 OF 2018, W.A Nos. 216

¶72

& 294 OF 2019

¶73

----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21^ST day of June, 2019

¶74

JUDGMENT

¶75

Abdul Rehim,J

¶76

Since all the above three writ appeals are arising out of a common judgment of the learned Single Judge and since the parties as well as the subject matter involved are more or less same, we heard all these cases together and disposed of them through this common judgment.

¶77

The appellant in W.A Nos. 2425/2018 and 294/2019 are one and the same person. He is the petitioner in WP(C) No. 8813/2016. He was not a party in WP(C) No. 6661/2018, from which W.A No. 294/2019 arises. He filed W.A No. 294/2019 after obtaining leave from this Court. The appellant in W.A No. 216/2019 is the petitioner in WP(C) No. 13096/2016. Even though the learned Single Judge had disposed of yet another writ petition, WP(C) No. 8729/2016, through the common judgment impugned herein, there is no writ appeal against the said case.

¶78

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶79

294/2019 & 216/2019 8

¶80

The subject matter involved has got a chequered history. M/s Matha Granites, who is the respondent in all the three cases, is conducting a quarrying and crushing unit in a property situated within the limits of Memury Village and Ramamangalam Grama Panchayath. They have approached this court in an earlier writ petition, WP(C) No. 10296/2015, seeking direction against the Village Officer to consider and pass orders on a representation submitted by them seeking correction in a sketch prepared by the Village Officer, for the purpose of submitting an application for obtaining the Quarrying Lease from the Mining and Geology Department and for the purpose of obtaining the environmental clearance under the Kerala Mining and Mineral concerned Rules, 2015. The case put forth by M/s Matha Granites was that, while preparing the sketch (marked as Ext.P3 in WP(C) No. 1029/2015), the Village Officer had wrongly marked a private road constructed by the firm within their property, as a Panchayath Road. It was contended before this court in the said writ petition that, the Grama Panchayath, who was made a respondent therein, do not have a case that the road in question belongs to the Panchayath nor that it was entered in the Road Registered kept in the Panchayaht. It was also contended that, on the basis of a request made by the Grama Panchayath M/s Matha Granites had constructed a new road through

¶81

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶82

294/2019 & 216/2019 9

¶83

the side of their property and that the public at large is using the said road, the land of which had already been surrendered by M/s Matha Granites to the Panchayath. According to M/s Matha Granites, if the private road passing through the middle of their property was a Panchayath Road, then there was no occasion for the Grama Panchayath to request them to cut open a new road for vehicular traffic through their property. The learned Single Judge while considering WP(C) No. 2916/2016 found that, the Grama Panchayath, who was made a party in the said case has not claimed any right over the Road in question. It was also found that the Village Officer has not consulted the Grama Panchayath while preparing the sketch, in order to ascertain whether there exists any Panchayath Road through the property of M/s Matha Granites. It was found that, if there would have been any such consultation, the mistake pointed out would not have occurred. To a specific query put to the Grama Panchayth while considering the said writ petition, as to whether the Road in question is included in the Register of the Panchayath, the answer given was on the negative. Hence it was found that there was no justification on the part of the Village Officer to mark the road in question as Panchayath Road in the sketch prepared. Therefore the said writ petition was allowed by quashing Ext.P3 sketch. The Village Officer

¶84

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶85

294/2019 & 216/2019 10

¶86

was directed to consider the request made by M/s Matha Granites for correcting the sketch, after obtaining necessary report from the Grama Panchayath, which was directed to be done within one month.

¶87

The judgment in W.P.(C) No.10296/2015 was taken up in writ appeal before the Division Bench, by a person named Santhosh.K.G, who was not a party in the writ petition, after obtaining leave from this court. It was contended in the appeal that the Road in question is actually a Panchayat Road, which is included in the Register. It was contended that, the observation made in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.10296/2015 to the effect that the Road in question is not a Panchayat Road, would cause grievance, since the appellant and others are using the said Road. A Division Bench of this court had disposed of the writ appeal (W.A.No.1984/2015) by making it clear that the Village Officer shall decide the matter without being influenced by any of the observations contained in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.10296/2015. Further, the appellant was given liberty to submit a representation before the Village Officer supported by any other materials, if required. The time for disposal of the matter by the Village Officer was extended by a further period of one month.

¶88

Consequent to the directions contained in the judgment in W.P.(C) No.10296/2015, which stood modified in W.A.No.1984/2015,

¶89

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶90

294/2019 & 216/2019 11

¶91

the Village Officer issued an intimation to the appellant in W.A.No.1984/2015, rejecting his representation stating that the Road in question namely, “Manjappillykkadu-Paramprakkadu Road” which passes through the property of M/s.Matha Granites is not seen marked in the records of the Village Office or in the survey plan. Further it is stated that, based on a site inspection conducted by the Village Officer, it was found that, no such Road is in existence.

¶92

The above said communication issued by the Village Officer to Sri.Santhosh.K.G was challenged by the appellant in W.A.No.2425/2018 and 294/2019 by filing W.P.(C) No.8813/2016. The said appellant claimed that he is the President of an organisation named “Paramprakkadu Pourasamithi” which is a registered organisation. It was stated that, the petitioner therein belongs to Scheduled Caste community and more than 95% members of the organisation belongs to SC and ST. It was also contended that, the “Manjappillykkadu-Paramprakkadu Road”, which is also known as “Kodikuthimala – Manjappillykadu Road”, is being used by the members of the Pourasamithi, who are residents of a 'Harijan Settlement Colony'. It was further contended that the said Road was constructed in the year 1972 by the members of the 'Pourasamithi' and it was handed over to the Grama Panchayat in the year 1993.

¶93

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶94

294/2019 & 216/2019 12

¶95

M/s.Matha Granites purchased the properties situated on both sides of the said Road and started quarrying operations therein. Subsequently, by virtue of the quarrying operations conducted, they have demolished about more than 300 Metres of the said Road and also tried to put up a gate in the middle of the said Road. It is stated that, they have constructed another Road through the eastern boundary of their own property and is now compelling the members of the 'Pourasamithi' to use the new Road which, according to him, is not unusable and safe. It is further pointed out that, by virtue of an interim order of injunction passed by the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha, M/s.Matha Granites were restrained from putting up any gate in the disputed Road. However, it was mentioned that, about 300 Metres of the Road stood destructed and the members of the organisation were not in a position to use the said Road. The said appellant had challenged the communication issued by the Village Officer to Sri.Santhosh.K.G., (which is marked as Ext.P8 in W.P.(C) No.8813/2016) about which mention is made in the forgoing paragraph. It was specifically contended that in the sketches prepared by the Village Officer on earlier occasions, in the year 2009 and 2013, the disputed Road was clearly marked as running through the middle of the property belonging to M/s.Matha Granites. It is stated that M/s.Matha Granites

¶96

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶97

294/2019 & 216/2019 13

¶98

had obtained a quarrying licence only by producing those sketches. The appellant had also contended that there is a specific entry in the Register of the Panchayath with respect to the Road in question, extract of which is marked as Ext.P13. It was also pointed out that the Panchayat had expended a sum of more than Rs.7,00,000/- for maintenance of the said Road. Therefore it was contended that the findings of the Village Officer to the extent that the records do not reveal existence of the Road, is absolutely incorrect. Inter alia, the petitioner in W.P.C.No.8813/2016, had raised allegations of nuisance and pollution caused by operation of the quarry and the crushing unit.

¶99

During the pendency of W.P.(C) No.8813/2016, another person named Sri.P.Varghese (appellant in W.A.No.216/2019) filed W.P.(C) No.13096/2016 before this court. One among the reliefs in the said writ petition was to direct the Grama Panchayat to restore the public road passing through the middle of the property of M/s. Matha Granites, which was demolished by them. Inter alia, it was prayed to cancel the permissions granted for the quarrying operations in the property. There is yet another relief sought for, to direct the Pollution Control Board to consider a complaint submitted by the petitioner therein against the quarrying operations, alleging nuisance, damages and pollution.

¶100

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶101

294/2019 & 216/2019 14

¶102

During pendency of W.P. (C.) Nos.8813/2016 and 13096/2016, the Grama Panchayat had filed another writ petition, W.P (C) No.6661/2018, seeking to quash the communication issued by the Village Officer to Sri. Santhosh K.G., which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P (C) No.8813/2016. Inter alia, declaration was sought to the extent that, the 'Manjappallykadu – Parambarakkadu Panchayat Road' passing through the eastern side of the property of M/s. Matha Granites is a public road vested with the Grama Panchayat. The contention seems to be that, there existed a road connecting 'Manjappallykadu – Parambarakkada' situated through the boundary of the property belonging to M/s. Matha Granites, which was revealed in the description of boundary contained in the title documents of M/s. Matha Granites. According to the Grama Pancahyat the said Road was included in the 'Asset Register' of the Panchayat. It is alleged that, during the quarrying operations, damages were caused to the said Panchayat Road and that, on the intervention of the Grama Panchayat M/s. Matha Granites had surrendered an extent of 46 cents of land for constructing a parallel Road. Under such circumstances it was contended that the decision taken by the Village Officer consequent to the direction issued from this court in W.P (C) No.10296/2015 & WA No.1984/2015, was erroneous and that such a decision was taken by

¶103

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶104

294/2019 & 216/2019 15

¶105

ignoring the vital records available in the panchayat. Hence the writ petition was filed.

¶106

While considering the above said writ petitions along with W.P (C) No.8729/2017 the Single Judge issued a direction to the Taluk Surveyor, Muvattupuzha to conduct survey of the properties and to report whether quarrying operations are conducted in accordance with the mining plan obtained by M/s. Matha Granites. It was also directed to examine whether there was any Road available as per the survey records, revenue records or Asset Register of the panchayat; and if so whether the Road in question was a private road or a public road. In a report submitted by the Taluk Surveyor it was indicated that, the survey records or revenue records does not reveal existence of such a Road. It was further stated therein that, the Road shown as 'Parambarakkada – Manjappallykadu' road in the Asset Register of the Grama Panchayat could not actually be plotted in the land belonging to M/s. Matha Granites. With respect to the local examinations conducted based on the sketches prepared by the Village Officer on earlier occasions, the Taluk Surveyor reported that the Road plotted on dotted lines in those sketches seems to be a private road ending at the office building of the quarry and the road which was leading beyond the property of M/s. Matha Granites cannot be identified. But,

¶107

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶108

294/2019 & 216/2019 16

¶109

the Taluk Surveyor, on perusal of various title deeds observed that, there are mention about a Panchayat Road passing through the boundary of the property belonging to M/s. Matha Granites. In the concluding paragraph of the report it is stated that, on inspection, the Road which could be identified is a Road leading to the office building of the quarry and deviated therefrom, which was claimed to be private road of M/s. Matha Granites. The learned Judge had specifically observed that the Grama Panchayat had filed W.P (C) No.6661/2018 only when it is confronted as to why they have not challenged the decision of the Village Officer that no road called 'Manjappallykadu – Parambarakkada Road' is vested with the Grama Panchayat.

¶110

Based on materials available on record and based on contentions advanced on behalf of different parties, the learned Single Judge found that the main issue arising for consideration is as to whether there existed a Panchayat Road by name 'Kodukuthymala - Manjappallykadu Road' which is also known as 'Parambarakkada – Manjappallykadu Road', which passed through the property of M/s. Matha Granites. It was specifically found that during the adjudication of W.P (C) No.10296/2015 the Grama Panchayat had not claimed any right that there existed a public road vested in the panchayat. It was also observed that, on the basis of such stand taken by the Grama

¶111

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶112

294/2019 & 216/2019 17

¶113

Panchayat the Village Officer was directed to consider the request for correction of the sketch. In the writ appeal the Division Bench had also directed consideration of the objections raised by Sri. Santhosh K.G. The Village Officer had arrived at clear finding that there existed no Public Road vested in the panchayat which passed through the property in question. Therefore the learned Single Judge found that, “it would be futile for the petitioners herein to contend that such a road does exist, and that too vests in the panchayat.”. Referring to a subsequent decision of the Grama Panchayat which indicate that the road passing through the property of M/s. Matha Granites belongs to the Panchayat, as well as the production of the Road Register on a subsequent stage, the learned Judge conducted a thorough verification of the records vis-a-vis the manuscripts and arrived at a finding that the entry in the Road Register is only in the year 19941995, which does not tally with the contention that the Road in question was there in existence since 1972. It was further found that, the Register contains other entries which are preceding to the relevant entry of this Road, which is of the year 1993-94. Therefore it was found that, no reliance could be placed with respect to the entries contained in the Road Register maintained by the Grama Panchayath. Hence the declaratory reliefs sought for in the writ petitions with

¶114

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶115

294/2019 & 216/2019 18

¶116

respect to existence of the Road in question, was declined. The issue agitated by M/s. Matha Granites in W.P.(C.) No. 8729/2016 was found in favour of them. With respect to the challenges raised against the quarrying and crushing operations, the learned Judge found that such operations are conducted based on valid licenses, consents and permissions. However, while dismissing W.P.(C.) Nos. 8813/2016, 13096/2016 and 6661/2018, the learned Single Judge had reserved liberty of the petitioners therein to approach the competent civil court having jurisdiction in the matter, seeking such declaratory reliefs, if so advised.

¶117

Adv. Mary Benjamin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. Nos. 2425/2018 and 294/2019 had raised vehement contentions that, the learned Single Judge went highly erred in declining the challenges raised against the decision taken by the Village Officer in correcting the sketch issued, to the extent that their exists no public road in the property of M/s. Matha Granites. Those contentions are also supported by Sri. C. Vathsalan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in W.A. No. 216/2019. The main grounds agitated was that the learned Judge had omitted to look into the aspect that the Village Officer had plotted the road in question in the sketches issued by him on earlier occasions, in the year 2009 and

¶118

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶119

294/2019 & 216/2019 19

¶120

It is further contended that, while taking a decision pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C.) No. 10296/2015 and in W.A. No. 1984/2015, the Village Officer had omitted to seek opinion of the Grama Panchayath or to make a perusal of the Asset Register kept in the Grama Panchayath. We notice that, neither the appellant in W.A. Nos. 2425/2018 and 294/2019 nor the appellant in W.A. No. 216/2019 were a party in the litigations in W.P.(C.) No. 10296/2015 or in W.A. No. 1984/2015. However, both of them have challenged the decision communicated by the Village Officer to Sri. Santhosh K.G., who is the appellant in W.A. No. 1984/2015. We take note of the fact that those writ petitions were entertained without having any adjudication on the question of their locus standi. But, it is pertinent to note that, both of them have not taken any steps to challenge validity of sketch issued by the Village Officer on the basis of the communication given to Sri. Santhosh K.G. or to challenge any quarrying license or permit issued by any competent authority under the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1967, on that count. Therefore, question as to whether the quarrying operations conducted therein based on the decision, if any taken by the Village Officer, is valid or not, is not a matter agitated, considered or decided in the impugned judgment. Therefore we are of the opinion that the challenge raised against the communication

¶121

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶122

294/2019 & 216/2019 20

¶123

issued by the Village Officer to Sri. Santhosh K.G., does not assume any importance. On the contrary, if there existed a Public Road in the property of M/s. Matha Granites, which became vested in the Grama Panchayath by virtue of the operation of Section 169 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 or by virtue of the corresponding provisions contained in the erstwhile Kerala Panchayaths Act, 1960, such vesting of the Road or the rights of any person using such road, will not in any manner be extinguished by virtue of any sketch prepared by the Village Officer for the purpose of obtaining the quarrying license. Therefore, the crucial question is whether there existed a Public Road, which got vested in the Grama Panchayath by virtue of the statutory provisions. For deciding the said question, evaluation of factual materials and evidence is absolutely necessary. The materials which were available before the learned Single Judge and the rival contentions taken by the parties are highly contradictory in nature. Evidently the Village Officer had found that there existed no road at all through the property of M/S. Matha Granites. The finding of the Taluk Surveyor is to the effect that he could not identify any public road existing through the said property. The stand taken by the Grama Panchayath is highly conspicuous. While deciding W.P.(C.) No. 10296/2015, they had no case that such a Road existed or vested in

¶124

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶125

294/2019 & 216/2019 21

¶126

the Panchayath, despite the fact that they were made party in the said writ petition. No such contention was seen taken by the Grama Panchayath in the writ appeal from that judgment also. But subsequently, they have come up with a case that the Road in question is included in the Asset Register. They have also taken a stand that on the basis of the resolution passed and request made, M/s. Matha Granites have constructed a new Road through their property, which is surrendered to the Grama Panchayath. All these aspects would fortify our view that, the question as to whether there existed a Public Road through the property of M/s. Matha Granites and as to whether they have demolished or destructed any portion of such Road is a question, which can be decided only on evaluation of material facts and evidence. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the liberty reserved by the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petitions, to the extent of permitting the petitioners therein to approach the competent civil court for such declaratory reliefs, is clearly legal and justified.

¶127

However, it is pointed out that, the learned Judge while deciding the issue has made an observation that it would be futile for the petitioners in the writ petitions to contend that such a road does existed and that too, vested in the Panchayath. We are of the

¶128

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶129

294/2019 & 216/2019 22

¶130

considered opinion that, such an observation was unwarranted in the context, especially when liberty of the petitioners therein was reserved for approaching the civil court seeking declaratory reliefs. So also there is a finding to the effect that, the entries contained in the Asset Register of the Panchayath is suspicious and that no reliance can be placed on the Road Register maintained by the Panchayath. We are of the opinion that such a finding also was not warranted for deciding the issues adjudicated in the writ petition based on the conclusions arrived in the impugned judgment.

¶131

Therefore, we make it clear that if the appellants or anybody claiming any right over the alleged public road before any forum shall not in any manner be prejudiced by those observations and any such forum considering the issue shall take an independent decision untrammeled by such observations. It is also made clear that the appellants or anybody else will be at absolute liberty to challenge the licenses, permissions or consents obtained by M/s. Matha Granites for running the quarry and crusher in the property in question, if so advised, based on any illegality, irregularity etc.

¶132

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶133

294/2019 & 216/2019 23

¶134

In the result, we do not find merit in the writ appeals. Consequently, the writ appeals fail and the same are hereby dismissed, however, subject to the observations contained herein above.

sd/-

C.K.ABDUL REHIM

JUDGE

sd/-

R. NARAYANA PISHARADI

¶140

JUDGE

¶141

lsn/jsr/dcs

¶142

W.A.Nos.2425/2018, 294/2019 & 216/2019 24

¶143

APPENDIX OF WA 2425/2018

¶144

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶145

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED ENTERED INTO BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 30.6.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER IN WPC.8729/2016

¶146

ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 17.5.2016 IN WPC.13096/2016 ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 11.4.2017 IN WPC.8729/2016

¶147

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶148

294/2019 & 216/2019 25

¶149

APPENDIX OF WA 216/2019

¶150

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶151

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.A NO. 2425/2018 DATED 17/12/2018.

¶152

ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY TALUK SURVEYOR, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶153

ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA.

¶154

ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN W.P(C) NO. 13096/2016.

¶155

ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN W.P(C) NO. 8729/2016.

¶156

W.A.Nos.2425/2018,

¶157

294/2019 & 216/2019 26

¶158

APPENDIX OF WA 294/2019

¶159

ANNEXURE 1 TRUE COPY OF THE WILL NO. 1245 OF 1986 COVERING SY. NO. 881/1/1 DATED 08.03.1986

¶160

ANNEXURE 2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 1179 OF 2015, DATED 17.06.2015

¶161

ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NUMBER 2237/1/2004, OF SRO, PRIAVOM

¶162

ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE WILL DEED NO. 59/98 OF SRO, PIRAVOM

¶163

ANNEXURE 5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 30.06.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER IN W.P.(C). NO. 8729 OF 2016

¶164

ANNEXURE 6 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH ON ANNEXURE 5 PLOTTING EXHIBITS P1, P2 AND ANNEXURES 1-4

Roy T.T. v. Ramangalam Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roy T.T. v. Ramangalam Grama Panchayath

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

S.I.Property Kerala Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Central Excise

M/S.Muthoot Bankers Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S.Muthoot Bankers Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax

Alappuzha District Table Tennis Association, Vs Kerala State Sports Council

P.Varghese, Vs Ramamangalam Grama Panchayagth

State of Kerala Vs M/S.Punathil Roller & Flour Mills (P) Ltd.