Dismissed

Anil Mathew v. the Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC2 Dec 2020WP(C)/11765/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought to compel the Kerala Water Authority to lay domestic water pipelines through a disputed private road. The Supreme Court held that since the title and right of way were sub judice in civil suits, the writ petition was without merit and dismissed, rejecting the claim despite the fundamental right to water.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' request to compel the construction of a pipeline through the disputed road was rejected; the writ petition was dismissed.

Anil Mathew Vs the Kerala Water Authority — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2020/11TH AGRAHAYANA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.11765 OF 2019(U)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 ANIL MATHEW, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O K.V.MATHAI, KOZHAKKATTUTHOTTATHIL HOUSE, SPX11/193(9),PALATHARA, POWDIKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 588.

¶8

2 DR. SAKTHIBABU R.L., AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. RATNAKARAN THAMPI, TCX/2024(1) PALATHARA, POWDIKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 588.

¶9

3 GIRIJA RAJEEVAN NAMBIAR, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O RAJEEVAN NAMBIAR, TC X/2024 (2), PALATHARA, POWDIKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 588.

¶10

4 DEEPA VISWANATH S.,AGED 29 YEARS, W/O VISHNU DAS, TC X/2024 (3), PALATHARA, POWDIKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 588.

¶11

BY ADVS. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI SMT.ASHIFA YOUSEFF SMT.FASHIYA YOUSEFF SMT.M.KABANI DINESH SRI.C.M.EBRAHIM SRI.SHOUKATH HUSAIN

WPC No.11765/2019

: 2 :

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECOTR, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN 695 033.

¶16

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER WORKS, WEST SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, PONGAMOODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 605 011.

¶17

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION BUILDING, COLLECTORATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 045.

¶18

4 DREAMLAND RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POWDIKONAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695 588.

¶19

R1-R2 BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJEMIN R1-R2 BY SRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI R4 BY ADV. SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.KURYAN THOMAS R4 BY ADV. SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-12-2020 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC No.11765/2019

: 3 :

N. NAGARESH, J.

W.P.(C) No.11765 of 2019

¶26

Dated this the 2^nd day of December, 2020

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

¶29

The petitioners, who are permanent residents of Uliyazhathura Village in Thiruvananthapuram Taluk, are before this Court seeking to declare that they are entitled to get domestic water connection to their respective residential houses from the 1^st respondent by virtue of Ext.P6 series work orders and to quash Exts.P7 and P7(a) notices/stop memo and Ext.P12 notice.

¶30

The petitioners state that in the year 2013, the 1^st petitioner purchased a vacant residential plot admeasuring 2.13 Ares including a right of way through the private road

¶31

leading to the plot from Mannanthala-Powdikonam public

¶32

WPC No.11765/2019

¶33

: 4 :

¶34

road by virtue of Ext.P1 Sale Deed. Petitioners 2 to 4 also purchased residential plots nearby with similar right of way from the Mannanthala-Powdikonam public road.

¶35

According to the petitioners, their residential plots are part and parcel of a larger extent of property admeasuring 6 Acres. It was purchased and developed by different developers. In the first phase, about 3.5 Acres of land was developed as 'Dream Land Villa Project'. The petitioners’ plots would come in the second phase. In the third phase, another project, namely 'Beacon Colors Villa' was developed. The plots in first and third phases/projects have already drew pipelines for domestic water connection through the common private road.

¶36

During 2013, petitioners 1 and 2 tried to get domestic water connection and the same could not be fruitful since the proposed estimate was too high, which petitioners 1 and 2 could not afford. The petitioners dug borewells and were using borewell water. Iron content and turbidity are too high in the borewell water as evidenced by Ext.P5 water

¶37

WPC No.11765/2019

¶38

: 5 :

¶39

analysis report of the Quality Control Regional Laboratory.

¶40

In June, 2018, the petitioners jointly made an application for domestic water connection from the 1^st respondent-Kerala Water Authority. The Public Works Department accorded tar-cut sanction on 27.09.2018. The 2^nd respondent-Executive Engineer, KWA, accorded sanction for domestic water connection to the petitioners. The petitioners remitted requisite fee and the Kerala Water Authority issued Ext.P6 work orders.

¶41

The work commenced on 01.10.2018. When the work started, members of the 4^th respondent-Residence Association obstructed the work stating that there is a stay order in their favour from civil court. The 4^th respondent stated that a portion of the private road leading to the different plots, including the properties of the petitioners, was

¶42

part of their recreational open space. The Thiruvananthapuram Corporation has not been issuing building completion certificate to them, for want of recreational open space. On 05.10.2018, the work resumed.

¶43

WPC No.11765/2019

¶44

: 6 :

¶45

But, again the 4^th respondent-Association obstructed the work.

¶46

To the dismay of the petitioners, on 06.10.2018,

¶47

the 2^nd respondent issued a memo directing to stop the ongoing work of drawing up of pipeline. Ext.P7 series are the notices issued by the 2^nd respondent. After the issuance of notice, petitioners 1 and 2 received a notice in respect of O.S. No.1579/2017 of the Munsiff's Court,

¶48

Thiruvananthapuram.

¶49

In the said suit, the petitioners were not arrayed as parties originally. But, they have been impleaded subsequently. Similarly, the 3^rd petitioner was impleaded in O.S. No.2224/2016 of the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram. Though such impleadings were made, the petitioners have not so far received any court order prohibiting laying of pipelines through the private tar road in question.

¶50

The petitioners submitted representation

¶51

explaining all facts to the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent

¶52

WPC No.11765/2019

¶53

: 7 :

¶54

forwarded the representation to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for enquiry. A report was called from Secretary of the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram and Village Officer. The reports submitted by the Corporation and the Village Officer would fortify the genuine need of the petitioners to draw pipelines through the private road for obtaining domestic water connection.

¶55

However, the 2^nd respondent has taken a stand that he has no objection to give water connection to the petitioners if the courts or higher authorities give positive orders in this regard. In the circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking necessary direction to facilitate drawing of pipelines for domestic water supply to them.

¶56

The 4^th respondent resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavits. The 4^th respondent contended that the petitioners have no right over the private road through which they are seeking to get a water pipeline laid. The said private road is owned and enjoyed exclusively by the

¶57

WPC No.11765/2019

¶58

: 8 :

¶59

members of the 4^th respondent-Association.

¶60

According to the 4^th respondent, four developers entered into Ext.R4(a) registered agreement ‘ Vazhi Udampady ’. In view of the said agreement, only the residents of the 4^th respondent-Association are entitled to use the private road starting from Mannanthala-Powdikonam Road. As per the permit issued by the Chief Town Planner, at the end of the 150 m. long private road, recreational open space of 37.055 cents is to be provided mandatorily. Based on the permission given by the Chief Town Planner, the Panchayat has issued development permit. The said development permit also contemplates open recreational area at the end of the private road.

¶61

The house plots of the petitioners lie much beyond the end of the private road and the earmarked recreational open space. In the year 2016, the Association realised that the previous owners had created some documents alienating adjacent properties. Persons who bought such properties tried to encroach the recreational open space, claiming rights

¶62

WPC No.11765/2019

¶63

: 9 :

¶64

under those documents.

¶65

Thereupon, O.S. No.2224/2016 was filed by the 4^th respondent in the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram for declaring that the Sale Deed is void and to recover the property trespassed upon. The 3^rd petitioner was one of the trespassers and was a party to the suit. The civil court granted an interim injunction dated 23.11.2016 restraining the defendants from interfering with enjoyment of A Schedule property (recreational open space) of the plaintiffs. In spite of the injunction order, the 3^rd petitioner proceeded with construction and the 4^th respondent moved against her for violation of injunction order.

¶66

However, the 3^rd petitioner completed the illegal construction and started residing in the building. One Manu J. Nair and 19 other members of the 4^th respondentAssociation filed O.S. No.1579/2017 in the Munsiff's Court, Thiruvananthapuram against the former owners. Thereafter, the 1^st petitioner and the 2^nd petitioner were also impleaded in the suit. In the said suit, the plaintiffs sought for a mandatory

¶67

WPC No.11765/2019

¶68

: 10 :

¶69

injunction to draw and provide the recreational open space as per the plan approved by the Chief Town Planner.

¶70

The 4^th respondent contended that the petitioners have access to clean drinking water from different sources and they have been making use of those sources since they settled down in their residential plots. The artificial water shortage now projected by the petitioners is intended to get a water pipeline drawn through the private road exclusively owned by the members of the 4^th respondent-Association. The writ petition has been filed without any bona fid e and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶71

Learned counsel for the petitioners Smt. Molly Jacob argued that the petitioners have a right to draw pipelines through the private road. The petitioners are already using the said private road for access to their houses and electricity lines to their residences are drawn through the said road. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Balakrishnan M.K. and others v. Union of India and others [(2009) 5 SCC 511] has held that right to get water is a part of right to life

¶72

WPC No.11765/2019

¶73

: 11 :

¶74

guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution.

¶75

The petitioners have a right over the private road in question. The mere fact that the 4^th respondentAssociation or any members of the said Association have instituted civil suits in courts, cannot be a reason to take away the fundamental right to life of the petitioners. The pending civil suits will take a long time for conclusion and it will not be just and proper to deny drinking water supply to the petitioners till the final conclusion of civil cases.

¶76

Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in Manishi Mighty v. West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. and others [(2012) 4 Cal LT 132] , the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that a person in possession of the property is in a far better position than that of a trespasser. The jurisprudence has theoretically interpreted the concept of possession in a manner so as to protect the possessor's is right. Life in its truest sense means a man must be provided with all facilities for living with dignity and with the basic amenities of the

¶77

WPC No.11765/2019

¶78

: 12 :

¶79

modern society and what Article 21 of the Constitution of India specifically seeks to ensure is not just bare survival or existence. The State is required to create objective situation rendering a citizens life worth living like a human being with all the dignities. The Kerala Water Authority therefore erred in requiring the petitioners to stop drawal of water pipeline.

¶80

The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammed

¶81

Hanif v. The State of Assam [(1969) 2 SCC 782], contended that though the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is an extraordinary jurisdiction, the remedy provided under Article 226 is a remedy against the violation of the rights of a citizen by the State or statutory authority. The petitioners are not attempting to enforce their constitutional rights. On the other hand, they are attempting to establish their claimed civil rights through writ proceedings. This cannot be permitted when the legal issues are pending consideration before a competent civil court.

¶82

WPC No.11765/2019

¶83

: 13 :

¶84

The learned counsel for the 4^th respondent relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Hindustan Steel Limited, Rourkela v. Smt. Kalyani Banerjee and others [(1973) 1 SCC 273] and the Constitution Bench judgment in The State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta [AIR 1952 SC 12] and urged that when civil proceedings are pending, this Court, in exercise of the powers under Article 226, shall not pass any orders affecting the rights agitated by the parties to the civil proceedings.

¶85

The counsel on both sides brought the attention of this Court to various agreements, sale deeds and other documents produced in their respective pleadings, to establish their respective civil rights. But, I do not deem it necessary to advert to those documents to decide the issue involved in this writ petition.

¶86

The dispute is regarding the right of the petitioners to draw a domestic water supply pipeline through a private road. According to the petitioners, the said private road starting from Mannanthala – Powdikonam public road, has a

¶87

WPC No.11765/2019

¶88

: 14 :

¶89

length of about 250 m. and the said private road reaches the residential plots of the petitioners. To assert the right over the private road, the petitioners state that they are using the said road for access to their houses and electricity lines to their houses are drawn through this road.

¶90

According to the 4^th respondent, the said private road, which is exclusively meant for the members of the 4^th respondent-Association, ends after about 150 m. from the public road and thereafter the area beyond the said end is a designated recreational open space prescribed by the Town Planning Authorities, over which the members of the 4^th respondent-Association alone have rights. The petitioners have no right whatsoever over the said designated recreational open space and if the petitioners are using the area for access to their residences, it is rank trespass. The members of the 4^th respondent-Association have approached competent civil court and the issue is subjudice.

¶91

The fact that there is a development permit and the permit contemplates recreational open area, is evident

¶92

WPC No.11765/2019

¶93

: 15 :

¶94

from the records. In their development permit, if the Town Planning Authorities have stipulated a condition of maintaining a recreational open area, such area has to be maintained, whatever be the disputes between the petitioners and the members of the 4^th respondent.

¶95

As far as the right of the petitioners over the private road, based on their respective title deeds, the issue is evidently pending before competent civil court, in which the petitioners are arrayed as defendants. The fact that the petitioners were not made defendants originally at the time of filing of the suit and they were impleaded subsequently, would not make any difference. The fact that the petitioners had applied for water supply connection prior to the institution of civil proceedings by the 4^th respondent and its members, will not also make any difference. As the very right of the petitioners to use the private road and the recreational open space in question is the issue involved before the civil court, the petitioners will have to defend the suit, in order to establish their rights.

¶96

WPC No.11765/2019

¶97

: 16 :

¶98

When this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot decide the issues now pending before the civil court, any order passed by this Court directing the Kerala Water Authority to enable the petitioners to draw pipeline through the disputed property, can be only of interim nature. If this Court does not have the power to give a final verdict on the issue, this Court would not be justified in granting reliefs which are interim in nature.

¶99

It is true that the right to drinking water is a fundamental right. But, enforcement of such fundamental right cannot be undermining civil rights of others. In the present case, the 4^th respondent has stated that an alternate pipeline is available at the north eastern side of the residential plots of the petitioners, at a distance of 75 m. and it would be much more convenient for the petitioners to draw a pipeline by extending the said connection, rather than drawing 250 m. long pipeline through the disputed private road.

¶100

To this, the reply of the petitioners is that the said

¶101

WPC No.11765/2019

¶102

: 17 :

¶103

alternate route is not feasible as the proposed route would come across the properties of third parties and puramboke land for which consent of third parties and Revenue Authorities have to be obtained. The issue as to the right of the petitioners and members of the 4^th respondent over the private road starting from Mannanthala-Powdikonam Road is also to be decided in civil proceedings.

¶104

In such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality in Exts.P7, P7(a) and P12 notices/stop memo issued by respondents 1 and 2. The petitioners cannot force respondents 1 and 2 to allow the petitioners to proceed with Ext.P6 series work orders, when civil proceedings are pending before Civil Court. The writ petition is therefore without any force or merit and it is accordingly dismissed.

¶105

Sd/-

¶106

N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/30.11.2020

WPC No.11765/2019

: 18 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶112

EXHIBIT P1	PHOTO COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO 129/2013 OF POTHENKODU SUB REGISTRY OFFICE IN FAVOR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P1(a)	PHOTO COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 8.5.2018 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER
	ULIYAZHATHURA IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P1(b)	PHOTO COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 7.5.2018 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2	PHOTO COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES SALE DEED NO 4092/2012 POTHENKODU SUB REGISTRY OFFICE
EXHIBIT P3	PHOTO COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SALE DEED NO 166/2013 OF POTHENKODU SUB
	REGISTRY OFFICE IN FAVOUR OF THE 3RD PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3(a)	PHOTO COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SALE DEED NO 2232/2016 OF POTHENKODU SUB
	REGISTRY OFFICE IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4	PHOTO COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH WITH RESPECT TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSES OF THE PETITIONERS
EXHIBIT P5	PHOTO COPY OF THE LAB REPORT DATED 2.8.2014 ISSUED BY THE QUALITY CONTROL
	REGIONAL LABORATORY OF THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶113

WPC No.11765/2019

¶114

: 19 :

¶115

EXHIBIT P6 PHOTO COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 27.9.2018 AND THE RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENTS THERE OF ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER

¶116

EXHIBIT P6(a) PHOTO COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 27.9.2018 AND THE RECEIPT THERE OF ISSUED TO 2ND PETITIONER R

¶117

EXHIBIT P6(b) PHOTO COPY OF THE WORK ORDER DATED 27.9.2018 AND THE RECEIPT THERE OF ISSUED TO 3RD PETITIONER

¶118

EXHIBIT P7 PHOTO COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO PETITIONERS 1 TO 3

¶119

EXHIBIT P7(a) PHOTO COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 19.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER

¶120

EXHIBIT P8 PHOTO COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO 1579/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶121

EXHIBIT P8(a) PHOTO COPY OF THE SUMMONS RECEIVED BY THE 1ST PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF OS NO 1579/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶122

EXHIBIT P9 PHOTO COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.10.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS NO 1 & 3 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶123

EXHIBIT P10 PHOTO COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 5.11.2018 SUBMITTED THE VILLAGE OFFICER ULIYAZHATHURA BEFORE THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶124

EXHIBIT P10(a) PHOTO COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 14.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BEFORE THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶125

WPC No.11765/2019

¶126

: 20 :

¶127

EXHIBIT P11	PHOTO COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION	DATED
	4.12.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETIT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT	IONERS
EXHIBIT P12	PHOTO COPY OF THE LETTER/NOTICE 28.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPOND	DATED ENT
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE SALE NO.2872/2009 OF POTHENCODE REGISTRYOFFICER.	DEED SUB
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE NO.3907/2012 OF POTHENCODE SUB REGIS	DEED TRY.
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.409 OF POTHENCODE SUB REGISTRY.	2/2012
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEEDNO.166 POTHENCODE SUB REGISTRY.	/13 OF
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF TE SALE DEED NO.2 OF THE POTHENCODE SUB REGISTRY.	232/16
EXHIBIT P18	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.334 OF POTHENCODE SUB REGISTRY.	3/2012
EXHIBIT P19	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PLAIN O.S.NO.2224/2016	T IN
EXHIBIT P20	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE INJUNCTION DTD.8/12/16 IN I.A.NO.10554/ 20 O.S.NO.2224/2016.	ORDER 16 IN
EXHIBIT P21	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE SALE NO.2804/2009.	DEED
EXHIBIT P22	TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT 26.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY 4TH RESPONDENT ASSOCIATION.	DATED OF THE
EXHIBIT P23	TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWI	NG THE
	TARRED ROAD LEADING TO THE PETIT HOUSES	IONERS

¶128

WPC No.11765/2019

¶129

: 21 :

¶130

EXHIBIT P24 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS PUBLISHED IN THE MALAYALAM MANORAMA DAILY DTD.12.03.2020 THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EDITION.

¶131

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶132

EXHIBIT R4(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED AGREEMENT STYLED AS VAZHI UDAMBADI DATED 5/10/2009 ALONG WITH THE ROAD PLAN ANNEXED TO IT. EXHIBIT R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D4/8377/08/D.DIS, DATED 15/1/2010 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF TOWN PLANNER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXHIBIT R(c) A TRUE COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.739/2009-10 DATED 19/1/2010 ALONG WITH THE SITE PLAN APPENDED TO IT DATED 1/1/2010 EXHIBIT R4(d) A TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST COMMISSION REPORT DATED 7/12/2016 IN OS NO.2224/2016 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT R4(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE SECOND COMMISSION REPORT DATED 26/10/2017 IN OS NO.2224/2016 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT R4(f) A TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH DATED 25/10/2017 APPENDED TO THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 26/10/2017 IN OS NO.2224/2016 FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT R4(g) A TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION NO.34584/2018 (WITHOUT ANNEXURE) DATED 22/10/2018 FILED BY FOUR MEMBERS OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT ASSOCIATION EXHIBIT R4(h) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.34584/2018 DATED 31/10/2018

¶133

WPC No.11765/2019

¶134

: 22 :

¶135

EXHIBIT R4(i) TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH DATED 28/09/2019 SHOWING THE LIE AND LOCATION OF THE PROPERTIES OF BOTH PARTIES, THE PIPELINE PROPOSED TO BE DRAWN BY THE PETITIONERS IN THE WRIT PETITION AND THE PIPELINE PROPOSED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶136

EXHIBIT R4(j) SURVEY SKETCH DATED 25/09/2019 SHOWING THE LIE AND LOCATION OF THE CANAL WHICH FLOWS ON THE EAST OF THE HOUSES OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE WRIT PETITION.

¶137

EXHIBIT R4(k) TRUE COPY OF THE FEASIBILITY AND COST ASSESSMENT WITH REGARD TO THE ALTERNATE PIPELINE AS PROPOSED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN, DONE BY LICENSED PLUMBER MR.SATHESHKUMARAN NAIR AND MR.J.S.K.NAIR ASSOCIATED WITH 'YES KEY PLUMBING WORKS' DATED 14/02/2020.

¶138

EXHIBIT R4(l) TRUE COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH (UNDATED) DRAWN UP BY MR.J.S.K.NAIR(PROPRIETOR OF YES KEY PLUMBING WORKS), SHOWING THE PROPOSED ALTERNATE PIPELINE.

¶139

EXHIBIT R4(m) TRUE COPY OF THE FEASIBILITY AND COST ASSESSMENT WITH REGARD TO THE WATER PIPELINE AS PROPOSED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 HEREIN, DONE BY LICENSED PLUMBER MR.SATHESHKUMARAN NAIR ASSOCIATED WITH 'YES KEY PLUMBING WORKS' DATED 14/02/2020.

¶140

EXHIBIT R4(n) TRUE COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH (UNDATED) DRAWN UP BY MR.J.S.K.NAIR (PROPRIETOR OF YES KEY PLUMBING WORKS), SHOWING THE PROPOSED PIPELINE AS SUGGESTED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 HEREIN.

¶141

EXHIBIT R4(o) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.2224/2016 DATED NOVEMBER, 2016 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶142

WPC No.11765/2019

¶143

: 23 :

¶144

EXHIBIT R4(p) TRUE COPY OF THE INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 28.11.2016 IN I.A.NO.10554/2016 IN O.S.2224/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM EXHIBIT R4(q) TRUE COPY OF THE PROSECUTION PETITION BEARING I.A.NO.11270/2016 IN O.S.2224/2016 DATED 19.12.2016 ON THE FILES OF THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FILED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE PETITIONER/4TH RESPONDENT ASSOCIATION UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 2A OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.

Anil Mathew v. the Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Mathew v. the Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E.K.Unnikammed Alias Kunhu Vs the District Magistrate

Heather Constructions Vs Union of India

Cavinkara Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

N.Bhaskaran Nair Vs State of Kerala

A.K. Shiji Vs State of Kerala

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Vs Muhammed P.Sadhik