Disposed

Pavithran. a, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC13 Oct 2020WP(C)/20787/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a property owner challenging a demolition notice for alleged encroachment on a PWD Road. The petitioner argued the notice bypassed his statutory objection regarding building lines. The Court directed the Executive Engineer to expeditiously consider the objection with a stay on proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's objection and pass orders within four weeks with a stay on proceedings under the impugned notice.

Pavithran. a, Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 21ST ASWINA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.20787 OF 2020(W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PAVITHRAN. A, AGED 72 YEARS S/O. AYYANKUNJU, VELIMPARAMBU, NORTH ARYAD, MANNACHERRY P.O, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 538

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN SMT.BHANU THILAK

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS & BRIDGES DIVISION, ALAPPUZHA.

¶12

3 THE THAHASILDAR (LR) AMBALAPPUZHA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001

¶13

SRI KP HARISH SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No.20787 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner states that he is the owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 14.5 cents which devolved upon him as per a partition deed which was executed in the year 1990. Alleging that the petitioner had encroached into the PWD Road and had put up buildings therein, Ext.P1 notice was issued to him under Section 15 of the Highway Protection Act. It is contended that a notice was issued without proper demarcation of the property and without determining the building lines and control lines as contemplated under Section 18 of Act 6 of 2000. He would state that he has preferred a detailed objection a copy of which is produced as Ext.P2. However, without considering Ext.P2 the respondents are proceeding to demolish the building. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash Ext.P1 notice.

¶19

Sri.K.S.Hariharaputhran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that his only request is for a direction to the respondents to consider Ext.P2 along with his documents before proceeding with Ext.P1.

¶20

Sri.K.P.Harish, the learned Senior Government Pleader submits that Ext.P1 notice was issued after clear demarcation. However, he fairly submits that since Ext.P2 is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent, the same can be considered in an expeditious manner. He states that the details of the

¶21

WP(C).No.20787 OF 2020

¶22

¶23

demarcation carried out can also be furnished to the petitioner.

¶24

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the submissions made across the Bar, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to take up Exhibit-P2 objection and pass appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioner as well, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If the petitioner requests, the details of demarcation of the area and also the building line and control line shall be furnished to him.

¶25

Till orders are passed by the 2nd respondent, proceedings pursuant to Ext.P1 notice shall be kept in abeyance.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

sru

¶30

WP(C).No.20787 OF 2020

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.09.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶35

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 28.09.2020.

¶36

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶37

NIL

Pavithran. a, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavithran. a, v. State of Kerala

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

Mathew Sebastian, Vs Dr. K.C.Kurian

U.v.Abraham Vs the Arbitrator(N.H) and District Collector

A.Bovas Vs the Arbitrator (N.H.) and District Collector

Adhikarath Kunheedhu Vs the District Collector

Ajmal @ Ajmal Ummar Vs the Secretary, the Central Board of Secondary Education

T.B.Kabeer Vs the Regional Transport Authority