Disposed

Prasanna P., v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Kerala HC8 Jul 2021WP(C)/11754/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought a direction to the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the petitioner's pending appeal regarding a lease application for property allegedly encroaching on government puramboke land under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent to take up and finalize the petitioner's Ext.P8 appeal within 45 days, giving notice to interested parties.

Prasanna P., Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 11754 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 11754 OF 2021

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

PRASANNA P., AGED 63 YEARS RAJITH BHAVAN, MALOOR P.O., VATTAKALA, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM, PIN-689695.

¶9

BY ADVS. LIJIN THAMBAN MOBIN JACOB

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691305.

¶12

2 THE TAHSILDAR, (LR), PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN691306.

¶13

3 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, MINI CIVIL STATION, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM-689695.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 11754 OF 2021

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner herein states that she is the absolute owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 2.12 Ares in Old Survey No.2854/2 of Pattazhi Village. The property was acquired on the cover of sale deed No.334/93 of SRO, Pattazhy. Based on a complaint lodged by a certain Miss. Bindu, a neighbour of the petitioner, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings which culminated in the issuance of Ext.P1 order under Section 145(1) of the Cr.P.C. While passing Ext.P1 order, the 1st respondent took note of the fact that the petitioner and Miss Bindu had encroached upon Government puramboke and directions were issued to measure out the same and to inform the PWD authorities to take appropriate action to remove the encroachment.

¶19

It appears that Miss. Bindu approached this Court seeking various reliefs and by Ext.P2 judgment, this Court directed the PWD to initiate appropriate action and to remove encroachments from the PWD road.

¶20

While so, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.(C) No.24185/2019 challenging Ext.P1 order. This Court refused to interfere but granted the petitioner a breathing time to avail appropriate remedies.

¶21

Later, the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 notice by the Executive Engineer, PWD invoking Section 15(2) of the National Highways Act. The petitioner challenged the said notice before this Court by preferring

¶22

WP(C) NO. 11754 OF 2021

¶23

¶24

W.P.(C) No. 28891/2020. After evaluating the facts and circumstances, by Ext.P5 judgment, this Court refused to interfere with the notice. Necessary directions were issued to the concerned respondents to remove the encroachments made by the petitioner as well as Bindu upon the road puramboke.

¶25

According to the petitioner, she has now preferred Ext.P6 application for lease of land under Section 13(b) of the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). However, her request was rejected holding that the property forms part of the road puramboke and that it is for her to approach the PWD authorities. Being aggrieved, she has approached the 1st respondent and has filed an appeal under Rule 21 of the Rules. Her solitary prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to the 1st respondent to consider her appeal and take appropriate decision in a time bound manner.

¶26

The learned Government Pleader, Smt. A C Vidhya, submitted that Rule 13 (b) of the Rules deals with the lease of land for beneficial enjoyment of adjoining holding. According to the learned Government Pleader, ‘beneficial enjoyment’ has been defined under Rule 2 (cd) of the Rules to mean the enjoyment of land for purposes like providing approach road to the assignee’s registered holding and protection of his watercourse, standing crops and buildings. The learned Government Pleader would also refer to Rule 13 of the Rules and it was argued that encroachment upon land on the sides

¶27

WP(C) NO. 11754 OF 2021

¶28

¶29

of the PWD road cannot be the subject matter of a lease.

¶30

7. I have anxiously considered the submissions advanced.

¶31

Undisputedly, this Court on more than one occasion had occasion

¶32

to hold that the petitioner had encroached upon puramboke land. That issue cannot now be re-agitated. Probably, for that reason, the petitioner has now filed an application for lease invoking the relevant provisions of the Land Assignment Rules. The 2nd respondent has rejected her request against which Ext.P8 appeal has been preferred. Now that the appeal is pending consideration of the 1st respondent, necessary directions can be issued to take up the appeal and dispose it of in an expeditious manner.

¶33

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to take up Ext.P8 appeal and finalize the same with notice to the petitioner and affected parties, if any, strictly in accordance with law. The entire exercise shall be completed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of 45 days from today.

¶34

The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with this judgment before the 1st respondent on or before 20-7-2021.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

DSV

¶39

WP(C) NO. 11754 OF 2021

¶40

¶41

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11754/2021

¶42

PETITIONER ANNEXURE

¶43

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 1.2.2019.
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 14316/2019 DATED 1.8.2019.
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.9.2019 IN WP(C) 24185/2019.
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.12.2020.
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28891/2020 DATED 23.3.2021.
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 7.12.2020.
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6- 7678/20/KDIS, DATED 18.1.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.3.2021 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶44

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL

Prasanna P., v. the Revenue Divisional Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasanna P., 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

Rahulan Vs Tahasildar (Lr)

P.N.Muhammed Rafeeq Vs State of Kerala

Shyju Rahman P.A. Vs State of Kerala

C.a.Sheneer Vs State of Kerala

Thuruthipalli Shobana Vs the Special Tahsildar (La)

John Chacko Vs State of Kerala