Disposed

Sheela Babu v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC17 Nov 2020WP(C)/17816/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition seeking mandamus to implement a Grama Panchayat decision removing encroachment that blocked a public pathway on government land. It directed the Tahsildar to facilitate demarcation by the Taluk Surveyor within a month, followed by encroachment removal by the Revenue Officer and Tahsildar within another month.

What did the court decide?

Directed Tahsildar to ensure demarcation of encroachment within one month, followed by removal of encroachment by revenue authorities within a further month.

Sheela Babu Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

W.P.(C) No.17816 OF 2020(B)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 SHEELA BABU, AGED 61 YEARS, W/O. BABU P.K., PUTHENVEETTIL HOUSE, OCHANTHURUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

2 BABURAJ T.S., AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. SKANDAN, THIRUNILATH, MALIPURAM P.O., VALAPPU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶9

3 CHAKRAPANI, AGED 68 YEARS, S/O. K.K. KRISHNAN, KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, MALIPURAM P.O., VALAPPU BEACH ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶10

4 SURENDERAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. VASU, PULLUKATTIL THARA HOUSE, MALIPPURAM P.O.

¶11

5 K.K.SHALIVAHAN, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNAN, KAITHAVALAPPIL HOUSE, MALIPPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682 001.

¶15

2 THE ELAMKUNNAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ELAMKUNNAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, MALIPPURAM-682 511.

¶16

*** 3 ANUJA C., D/O. CHELLAPPAN, VALIYAVEETIL PARAMBI, PADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI-682 024.**

¶17

W.P.(C) No.17816 OF 2020(B)

¶18

-2-

¶19

THE CAUSE TITLE IS AMENDED BY INCORPORATING THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT AS “ANUJA.C., MYLAMATTATHI HOUSE, KAYANAD, MEMURY, OORAMANA P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-686 663” AS PER ORDER DATED 15-10-2020 IN I.A.NO.1/2020.

¶20

4 VINOD, S/O. CHELLAPPAN, VALIYAVEETIL PARAMBI, PADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY P.O., KOCHI-682 024.

¶21

5 RAJI T.P., PROPRIETRIX, COASTAL GAS SERVICES, 6/226, P & Q GODS OWN BUILDING, VALLAPPU JN, MALIPURAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 511.

¶22

**ADDL. R6 THE TAHSILDAR (LR), REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, GROUND FLOOR, K.B.JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI-682 001.

¶23

**** IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 04-11-2020 IN I.A.NO.3/20.**

¶24

R2 BY ADV.SRI.P.M.BENZIR

¶25

ADDL.R6 SMT.VIDHYA A.C., GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

W.P.(C) No.17816 OF 2020(B)

¶28

-3-

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The 1^st petitioner is the owner in possession of 50 cents of land in Re.survey No.517/21 of Elamkunnapuzha Village covered by Ext.P1 sale deed No.3634/1993 of the Sub Registrar Office, Njarakkal. The 2^nd petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of 132 cents in Survey Nos.519/3 and 519/19 of Elamkunnapuzha Village and petitioners 3, 4 and 5 are stated to be the owners in possession of 129.5, 68.7 and 39.5 cents of property in Survey Nos.1448/12, 1449/20 & 1452 of Elamkunnapuzha Village. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 1^st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer, Fort Kochi to initiate urgent measures to implement Ext.P8 decision taken by the 2^nd respondent Elamkunnapuzha Grama Panchayat, within a time limit to be stipulated by this Court.

¶31

The grievance of the petitioners are against respondents 3 to 5. Respondents 3 to 4 own approximately 111 cents of land in Sy.Nos.517/5 and 517/22 of Elamkunnapuzha Village, in which the 5^th respondent, the mother of respondents 3 and 4, is conducting a gas agency, namely, 'Coastal Gas Services'. There is a pathway on

¶32

W.P.(C) No.17816 OF 2020(B)

¶33

-4-

¶34

the western side of the petitioners property, which is their only access, which is abutting a small canal (thodu). The property owned by respondents 3 and 4 lies on the western side of the petitioners property. Besides the property of respondents 3 and 4, there is land having an extent of 7 cents in Sy.No.517/6 of Elamkunnapuzha Village, which is in fact Government puramboke, as evident from Ext.P2 relevant extract of Basic Tax Register. On 24.06.2020, respondents 3 to 5 have encroached into that Government puramboke by constructing wall and putting up a gate. Thereafter, they put up second gate on the eastern side of Government puramboke on 01.07.2020 and third gate on 28.07.2020. As a result of which the pathway leading to the petitioners properties is completely blocked.

¶35

The document marked as Ext.P3 is the photographs evidencing the alleged encroachment by respondents 3 and 4. The petitioners submitted Ext.P4 compliant dated 14.07.2020 before the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayat. The 1^st petitioner has also submitted Ext.P5 complaint dated 02.07.2020 before the 1^st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer. On receipt of Ext.P4 complaint, the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P6 notice dated

¶36

W.P.(C) No.17816 OF 2020(B)

¶37

-5-

¶38

27.07.2020 requiring petitioners and respondents 3 to 5 to appear for personal hearing on 29.07.2020. The petitioners as well as respondents 3 to 5 appeared before the 2^nd respondent on 29.07.2020, as evidenced by Ext.P7 minutes dated 29.07.2020, it was decided that the obstruction should be removed in order to make the pathway usable. Despite Ext.P7, respondents 3 to 5 did not remove the obstruction or restore the pathway. In such circumstances, the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayat constituted a Committee which had inspected the property. Based on the report of the Committee, the 2^nd respondent took Ext.P8 decision dated 10.08.2020. The 1^st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer and the additional 6^th respondent Tahsildar [LR], Fort Kochi are requested to take urgent steps to remove the encroachment and to repossess the Government puramboke. Seeking implementation of Ext.P8, the petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition.

¶39

On 07.09.2020, when this writ petition came up for

¶40

admission, this Court admitted the matter on file. The learned Government Pleader took notice for the 1^st respondent. Urgent notice by speed post was ordered to respondents 2 to 5.

¶41

On 23.10.2020, this Court passed the following order;

¶42

W.P.(C) No.17816 OF 2020(B)

¶43

-6-

¶44

“Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, would submit that the 1^st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer has already directed the Tahasildar (LR), Kochi Taluk, to take necessary steps in terms of Ext.P8 decision taken by the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayath.

¶45

Petitioner to file an application to implead the Tahasildar (LR), Kochi Taluk, as additional 6^th respondent.

¶46

Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayath seeks time to get instructions as to whether respondents 3 and 4 are making any construction on the disputed pathway.

¶47

In case respondents 3 and 4 are making any construction without obtaining building permit, the Secretary of the Grama Panchayath shall take necessary action, if found necessary, by seeking police assistance under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 252 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.”

¶48

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent and the additional 6^th respondent and also the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayat. Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents 3 to 5.

¶49

During the course of arguments, the learned Government Pleader would submit that, in order to remove the encroachment made by respondents 3 to 5, the Taluk Surveyor has to demarcate the encroachment. The additional 6^th respondent

¶50

W.P.(C) No.17816 OF 2020(B)

¶51

-7-

¶52

Tahsildar shall take necessary steps for demarcation of encroachment by the Taluk Surveyor and on receipt of the report and sketch, the 1^st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer and the additional 6^th respondent Tahsildar shall take necessary steps to remove the encroachment on Government puramboke, as sought for in Ext.P8 decision taken by the 2^nd respondent Grama Panchayat. The learned Government Pleader would submit that, since the Taluk Surveyor is tested Covid positive, a reasonable time may be granted for demarcating the encroachment on Government puramboke and for removing the encroachment.

¶53

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the additional 6^th respondent Tahsildar to see that demarcation of the encroachment of Government puramboke is undertaken by the Taluk Surveyor, with notice to the petitioners and respondents 3 to 5, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and thereafter, the 1^st respondent Revenue Divisional Officer and the additional 6^th respondent Tahsildar shall take necessary steps to remove that encroachment as sought for in Ext.P8 decision

¶54

W.P.(C) No.17816 OF 2020(B)

¶55

-8-

¶56

taken by the 2^nd respondent. The entire exercise in this regard shall be completed, within a further period of one month.

¶57

The interim order granted on 23.10.2020 shall be in force till

¶58

the completion of the entire exercise, as directed above.

¶59

Sd/-

¶60

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶61

bpr

¶62

W.P.(C) No.17816 OF 2020(B)

¶63

-9-

¶64

APPENDIX

¶65

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶66

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE OF NJARAKKAL SRO	SALE DEED NO.3634/1993 DATED 22.11.1993.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX REGIST THE ABOVE SAID 7 NO.517/6 IS A GO	RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ER WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT CENTS OF LAND IN RE.SY VERNMENT PURAMBOKE.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE THE ENCROACHMENT THE 3RD AND 4TH	PHOTOGRAPHS EVIDENCING AND THE GATE, PUT UP BY RESPONDENTS.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE THE PETITIONERS 14.7.2020.	COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE THE IST PETITION RESPONDENT DATED	COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY ER BEFORE THE IST 2.7.2020.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT D	NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ATED 27.7.2020.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF MIN COMMITTEE OF THE	UTES OF THE HEARING 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE RESPONDENT DATED	DECISION TAKEN BY 2ND 10.8.2020.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE PARIVAHAN SITE.	SCREEN SHOT FROM THE

¶67

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Sheela Babu v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheela Babu v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

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

Rajeeram Prasad Vs Canara Bank

Abdul Rahim Vs the Union of India

Abdul Rahim, Vs the Union of India

Adheena Joemon, Vs State of Kerala

Kerala Academy of Pharmacy Vs the Director of Medical Education

Tono Thomas Vs Ms.v.Asha