Dismissed

Beebi T.T. v. the Administrator

Kerala HC7 Dec 2020WP(C)/12700/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition seeking enforcement of a settlement agreement between private parties regarding alleged property encroachment. The court held that the dispute is essentially civil in nature between private parties, exceeding the jurisdiction of administrative officers, and directed the petitioners to seek redress through the Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach the Civil Court for redressal.

Beebi T.T. Vs the Administrator — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

WP(C).No.12700 OF 2020(J)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶6

MONDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶7

WP(C).No.12700 OF 2020(J)

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 BEEBI T.T. AGED 64 YEARS D/O.B.ABDULKHADER SAHIB,THAITHOTTAM, KILTAN ISLAND,UT OF LAKSHADWEEP.

¶10

2 DR.SHAH NAVAS.M, AGED 43 YEARS S/O BEEBI.T.T.THAITHOTTAM KILTAN ISLAND,U T OF LAKSHADWEEP.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 THE ADMINISTRATOR, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATHI-682555.

¶14

2 THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KADMAT ISLAND,UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP682556.

¶15

3 A.C.KOYAKIDAVE, ASRECHETTA,KADAMAT ISLAND, KADAMAT-682556.

¶16

R1-2 BY SRI.MANU.S, SCGC, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP R3 BY ADV. SRI.M.P.KRISHNAN NAIR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No.12700 OF 2020(J)

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 7^th day of December 2020

¶22

The Writ Petition is filed seeking enforcement of Ext.P2 order by which the petitioners and the 3^rd respondent had agreed for settlement in respect of the encroachment alleged to have been made.

¶23

The 3^rd respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit stating that he is in possession of his property alone and there is no encroachment. According to him the agreement Ext.P2 was entered into since he was mislead by the petitioners and others. The official respondents have also filed a statement.

¶24

The learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel

¶25

for the Lakshadweep Administration has filed a statement stating that the dispute has been arisen between the parties regarding the very same property on which they have arrived at an agreement as per Ext.P2. It is basically a civil dispute between private parties and the 2^nd respondent does not have any jurisdiction to decide civil disputes between private parties with respect to private properties and it is for the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievances. Learned Standing Counsel also relied on the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.23723/2012 in which it has been held

¶26

¶27

WP(C).No.12700 OF 2020(J)

¶28

that jurisdiction of the Officers under Regulation 66 and 81(1) of the Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulations, 1965 is of a limited nature and that his authority is only to decide disputes between the Government and private parties. In the present case, dispute is between private parties with respect to private property. Therefore this Court will not be justified in issuing any direction to respondents 1 and 2 to enforce Ext.P2, when there is a civil dispute.

¶29

The petitioners would be free to approach the Civil Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court.

Sd/-

P.V.ASHA

JUDGE

rkc

WP(C).No.12700 OF 2020(J)

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE F.NO.19/2018-SDO/22 DATED 12.06.2018.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2019 ALONG WITH SKETCH
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.2.2020.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXT.R3A	A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.71/2004 B1 DT.1.10.2004 OF SRO, KADAMAT
EXT.R3B	TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DT.16.07.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, KADAMAT
EXT.R3(B)(1)	TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE, KADAMAT ALONG WITH EXT.R3B
EXT.R3C	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT.6.8.19 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAVARATHI
EXT.R3D	TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DT.12.9.20 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADMINISTRATOR KAVARATTI UT OF LAKSHADWEEP
EXT.R3(E)	TRUE COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE DT.9.3.2020 ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT BY THE ADVOCATE AJIT.G ANJARIEKAR

Beebi T.T. v. the Administrator

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beebi T.T. v. the Administrator

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

Candela Engineering Corporation Vs Corporation of Thrissur

Amal M Raja Vs the Regional Officer

Paily Abraham Vs Kerala Water Authority

Swaminathan Vs State of Kerala

Hussan P.P Vs the District Level Authorization Comittee

Meera Lakshmi S. Vs State of Kerala