Disposed

P.N.Shivaraman v. Assistant Executive Engineer

Kerala HC21 Jan 2021WP(C)/117/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a notice alleged to be based on encroachment of road puramboke land. The Court directed the respondent to conduct a personal hearing to consider the petitioner's objection and take a decision before proceeding with the notice.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to conduct a personal hearing on 27.01.2021 to consider the objection to the notice and decide accordingly before proceeding further.

P.N.Shivaraman Vs Assistant Executive Engineer — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 1ST MAGHA, 1942

¶5

W.P.(C) No.117 OF 2021(L)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 P.N.SHIVARAMAN, AGED 74 YEARS, S/O.LATE M.NARAYANAN NAIR, RESIDING AT SREENILAYAM, NETTOOR, MARADU-682 040.

¶8

2 NALINIKUTTY, AGED 68 YEARS, W/O.P.N.SHIVARAMAN, RESIDING AT SREENILAYAM, NETTOOR, MARADU-682 040.

¶9

BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM SRI.RAJA KANNAN SRI.R.CHETHAN KRISHNA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

*1 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ROADS SUB DIVISION, NGO QUARTERS-BHARATHMATHA COLLEGE RD, MYTHRIPURAM VAZHAKKALA, KAKKANAD, KOCHI-682 021. 2 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. ADDL. R3 TAHASILDAR(LR), KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM-682 312. * ADDL.R3 IS SUOMOTU IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 07.01.2021. SMT.AMMINIKUTTY, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C) No.117 OF 2021(L)

¶14

-2-

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The 2^nd petitioner is the owner of 10.0035 cents of land comprised in Sy.No.26/4 (Old Sy.No.1218/3) in Kanayannur Taluk of Maradu Village. The 1^st petitioner is the husband of the 2^nd petitioner. The petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P3 notice dated 02.12.2020 issued by the 1^st respondent Assistant Executive Engineer, Public Works Department (Roads Division), Ernakulam. The grievance of the petitioners is that, the 2^nd respondent issued Ext.P3 notice, without any basis, alleging that while constructing the compound wall, the petitioners have encroached into 0.07 Ares of road puramboke in Sy.No.25/21 of Maradu Village. Ext.P3 notice is addressed to the 1^st petitioner. On receipt of Ext.P3, the 1^st petitioner submitted Ext.P4 objection dated 30.12.2020, before the 1^st respondent.

¶17

On 05.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Government Pleader sought time to get instructions from the 1^st respondent and the matter was ordered to be listed on 07.01.2021. This Court ordered that the status quo as on that date, in respect of the compound wall of the petitioners,

¶18

W.P.(C) No.117 OF 2021(L)

¶19

-3-

¶20

referred to in Ext.P3 shall be maintained till 07.01.2021.

¶21

On 07.01.2021, this Court was suo motu impleaded the

¶22

Tahsildar (LR), Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam as additional 3^rd respondent. The learned Government Pleader sought time to file statement/counter affidavit on behalf of respondents 1 and 3. By order dated 07.01.2020, the order of status quo was extended further till 21.01.2021.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶24

The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the 1^st petitioner has already made Ext.P4 objection to Ext.P3 notice issued by the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent will consider that objection and take an appropriate decision, before proceeding further in the matter.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have raised various legal and factual contentions in Ext.P4 objection dated 30.12.2020. Considering the age of the petitioners, either the 1^st petitioner or an authorised representative of the petitioners will appear before the 1^st

¶26

W.P.(C) No.117 OF 2021(L)

¶27

-4-

¶28

respondent on the date of personal hearing.

¶29

The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that 1^st respondent will conduct a personal hearing on 27.01.2021 at 11.00 am.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that either the 1^st petitioner or an authorised representative of the petitioners will be personally present before the 1^st respondent at the time of personal hearing.

¶31

Having considered the submissions made by the learned

¶32

counsel on both sides, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions;

¶33

i) The 1^st respondent shall conduct a personal hearing on 27.01.2021 at 11.00 a.m . to consider Ext.P4 objection made by the 1^st petitioner to Ext.P3 notice dated 20.12.2020.

¶34

ii) In the personal hearing scheduled on 27.01.2021 either the 1^st petitioner or an authorised representative of the petitioners shall be personally present.

¶35

iii) After conducting personal hearing the 1^st respondent shall take an appropriate decision in the matter, after taking note of the contentions raised by

¶36

W.P.(C) No.117 OF 2021(L)

¶37

-5-

¶38

the 1^st petitioner in Ext.P4 objection and also in the written submission, if any, submitted at the time of personal hearing.

¶39

(iv) The decision taken on Ext.P4 objection made by the 1^st petitioner shall be communicated to the petitioners forthwith, before proceedings further with Ext.P3 notice.

¶40

The legal and factual contentions raised by the petitioners are left

¶41

open to be raised before the 1^st respondent at the appropriate stage.

¶42

Sd/-

¶43

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶44

bpr

¶45

W.P.(C) No.117 OF 2021(L)

¶46

-6-

¶47

APPENDIX

¶48

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶49

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 31.5.1982
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 2.6.1982
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 2.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.12.2020 SENT BY THE 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 21.3.2019 FOR THE YEAR 2018-19
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 1.1.2021 FOR THE YEAR 2020-21
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 15.9.2011 FOR THE YEAR 2011-12
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICE TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 13.5.2015 FOR THE YEAR 2015-16
RESPOND	ENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

P.N.Shivaraman v. Assistant Executive Engineer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.N.Shivaraman v. Assistant Executive Engineer

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

Saneesh V.T. Vs the Executive Engineer

Anilkumar J. Vs District Police Chief

Anil v. a. Vs the Tahsildar (Lr)

Sunny.C.v Vs State of Kerala

Balan Vs Land Tribunal, (Land Reforms)

Worldwide Knowledge Foundation Vs Council of Architecture