Disposed

Varghese K Issac v. the Secretary

Kerala HC17 Dec 2020WP(C)/22565/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition alleging encroachment of paddy land by respondents 5 to 7 for a pathway, the High Court of Kerala directed the District Collector to act on the complaint after affording an opportunity of hearing to the Power of Attorney holder and the respondents. Directions were issued to interdict unauthorized activities immediately.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to take appropriate action on Ext.P4 complaint after an opportunity of hearing, to be done within two months, with directions to interdict unauthorized activities if mov

Varghese K Issac Vs the Secretary — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.22565 OF 2020(U)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

VARGHESE K ISSAC S/O. ISSAC, AGED 67 YEARS, KARIPPAL HOUSE KUNNACKAL KARA, VALAKOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT NOW RESIDING AT 11813 E, CENTENNIAL SQ. PHILADELPHIA, PA 19116 UNITED STATES REPRESENTED BY HIS RELATIVE AS WELL AS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER VIPIN THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS, AGED 37 YEARS, PANANTHANATH HOUSE, VILLA NO. 8, SHREEJIDWARAKA, KANDANAD POST, TRIPUNITHURA 682 305

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.PAUL K.VARGHESE SMT.A.A.GEETHA

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶11

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKKANAD CIVIL STATION, ERNAKULAM 686 030 3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 669 4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VELAKOM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 316 5 K.I PAULOSE, AGED 59 YEARS (PWD CONTRACTOR) KAVIKKUNNEL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O, NELLAD, MUVATTUPUZHA 682 316

¶12

6 O.K JOSE, AGED 61 YEARS

¶13

WP(C).No.22565 OF 2020(U)

¶14

¶15

(NEIGHBOR ON THE WEST SIDE OF KARIPPAL HOUSE), ORAVANMARIYIL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA 682 316

¶16

7 NITHIN JOSE, AGED 21 YEARS S/O. O.K JOSE, (NEIGHBOR ON THE WEST SIDE OF KARIPPAL HOUSE, ORAVANMARIYIL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL P.O, MUVATTUPUZHA 682 316

¶17

GP. K.J. MANURAJ

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.22565 OF 2020(U)

¶20

¶21

W.P.(C) No.22565 of 2020

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the alleged encroachment made to the paddy land of the petitioner by respondents 5 to 7 for the purpose of making use of the same as a pathway. Ext.P4 is the complaint preferred by the petitioner before the District Collector in this regard. It is alleged that Ext.P4 is not being acted upon. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard in the writ petition.

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

¶25

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take appropriate action on Ext.P4 complaint after affording the Power of Attorney holder of the petitioner as also respondents 5 to 7 an opportunity of hearing. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within two months. It is made clear that the outer time limit prescribed as per this judgment for action on Ext.P4 complaint will not preclude the authorities including the second

¶26

WP(C).No.22565 OF 2020(U)

¶27

¶28

respondent from taking immediate measures for interdicting the alleged activities of respondents 5 to 7, if they are unauthorized. If the petitioner moves for such relief before the authorities, they shall take appropriate immediate measures if it is found that the activities are unauthorised.

Sd/-

P.B.SURESH KUMAR

JUDGE

WP(C).No.22565 OF 2020(U)

¶34

¶35

APPENDIX

¶36

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶37

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DATED 17-09-2020 THROUGH E-MAIL.

¶38

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER DATED 17-09-2020 THROUGH EMAIL EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ALUVA, DATED 17-09-2020 THROUGH E- MAIL EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION / COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 04/12/2020. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ACKNOWLEDGING EXT.P4 APPLICATION / COMPLAINT BY THE OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DATED 04/12/2020.

¶39

//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE

Varghese K Issac v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varghese K Issac v. the Secretary

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

Herold Vs the District Collector, Collectorate, Civil Station, Kakkanad

Saleem. M Vs Sugadha Pradeep

Chellamma P.T. Vs Appellate Authority Under Rule 10 of

Jayaprakashan K.V. Vs Kannur Municipal Corporation

Athira Shiju Vs State of Kerala

Kunhimoideen Vs the District Collector, Malappuram