Disposed

Abdul Jalal.P v. the District Collector

Kerala HC17 Jun 2019WP(C)/9625/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court directed the District Collector to consider a representation alleging illegal filling of a pond and encroachment of government land. The court fixed a two-month deadline for deciding the matter without adjudicating the merits of the allegations.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent directed to consider the petitioner's representation relating to illegal pond filling and encroachment and pass appropriate orders within two months.

Abdul Jalal.P Vs the District Collector — Environment and Pollution | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2019 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.9625 of 2019

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ABDUL JALAL.P., AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.KUNHUTTY, PARAKKAL HOUSE,KAKKIDIPURAM, POST ALANKODE, PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, POST MALAPPURAM, PIN-676505.

¶10

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, TIRUR,POST TIRUR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676101.

¶11

3 THE TAHSILDAR, PONNANI TALUK OFFICE,POST PONNANI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679577.

¶12

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, EDAPPAL VILLAGE OFFICE,POST EDAPPAL,MALAPPURAM -679576.

¶13

5 EDAPPAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POST EDAPPAL,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679576, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

6 PARAMAN THEKKIN KATTIL, S/O.ARUMUGHAN (LATE), THEKKIN KATTIL(H), CHATHAMKULAM, POST EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM-679576.

¶15

7 MANIKANDAN THEKKIN KATTIL, S/O.PARAMAN,THEKKIN KATTIL(H),CHATHAMKULAM, POST EDAPPAL,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679576.

¶16

8 DEVARAJAN PANEKATTU, S/O.VASU(LATE), PANEKATTU(H), CHATHAMKULAM, POST EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679576.

¶17

9 PRAKASAN PANEKATTU, S/O.VASU(LATE), PANEKATTU(H),CHATHAMKULAM,POST EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679576.

¶18

10 SATHYAN CHATHAMKULANGARA, S/O.KOTHA(LATE), CHATHAMKULANGARA(H),CHATHAMKULAM,POST EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-679576.

¶19

11 NAVEEN KUMAR THOLLAMKIDA VALAPPIL, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN,THOLLAMKIDA VALAPPIL(H), CHATHAMKULAM,POST EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM -679576.

¶20

12 PRAKASAN NAVANIPADATH, S/O ACHU, NAVANIPADATH(H), THARAKKAL, POST EDAPPAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679576. BY ADV. SRI.C.DINESH SRI MANU RAJ K.J- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.06.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C)9625 OF 2019

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to be an agriculturist, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5 to stop the illegal filling of pond and encroachment of Government Puramboke in Survey No.102/1A of Edappal Village by respondents 6 to 12; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 representation dated 18.03.2019, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶26

In the writ petition, it is alleged that, respondents 6 to 12 are involved in the illegal filling up of pond and encroachment of Government Puramboke in Survey No.102/1A of Edappal Village. Pointing out the said fact, the petitioner has already moved Ext.P4 representation dated 18.03.2019 before the 1^st respondent.

¶27

On 28.03.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 4. Urgent notice on admission by special messenger was ordered to respondents 5 to 12,

¶28

¶29

WP(C)9625 OF 2019

¶30

returnable by 03.04.2019.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4, the learned Standing Counsel for the 5^th respondent Grama Panchayat and also the learned counsel for respondents 6 to 12.

¶32

The learned Government Pleader, on instructions from the 4^th respondent Village Officer, would submit that there is no illegal filling up of the pond and encroachment of Government Puramboke in Survey No.102/1A of Edappal Village by respondents 6 to 12. The learned counsel for respondents 6 to 12 would submit that they are not undertaking any such activity as alleged in this writ petition.

¶33

Per contara, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that such illegal filling up of the pond is going on and as such, consideration of Ext.P4 representation made by the petitioner before the 1^st respondent is necessary.

¶34

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of, without going into the merits of the case, with the following directions;

¶35

¶36

¶37

(i) If Ext.P4 representation made by the petitioner is

¶38

still pending consideration before the 1^st respondent, the said respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice to the petitioner and also to respondents 6 to 12.

¶39

(ii) Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶40

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything as to the merits of allegations in Ext.P4 representation made by the petitioner and it is for the 1^st respondent to take appropriate decision, strictly in accordance with law.

¶41

Sd/- ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 14.7.2004. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C)NO.22942/2004 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 6.8.2004. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO.22942/2004 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 9.8.2017. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18.3.2019.

¶48

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:NIL

¶49

TRUE COPY

¶50

P.A. TO JUDGE

Abdul Jalal.P v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Jalal.P v. the District Collector

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

P.K.Construction Company Vs State of Kerala

Jameela Hamsa Vs State of Kerala

V.M.Joseph Vs Kadanad Grama Panchayath

Suresh Kumar.K Vs the District Collector

Sabu Mathew, Vs Secretary

K.M.Wilson, Vs M.v.Varghese