Disposed

Ramachandran K. v. Vs State of Kerala

Kerala HC21 Dec 2021WP(C)/12706/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging delay in completing a service road and constructing a retaining wall due to a landslide. Court disposed of the petition directing authorities to complete the road and wall within six months after proposal sanction.

What did the court decide?

Directed authorities to complete the service road and construct the retaining wall within six months of receiving this judgment, with an option to approach the Court for an extension in case of diffic

Ramachandran K. v. Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2021 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 12706 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 RAMACHANDRAN K. V. AGED 72 YEARS S/O. KANNOTH KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, RETIRED TEACHER, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, P. O. VENGARA, KANNUR - 670 305. 2 HARINDRAN K. V. AGED 68 YEARS S/O. KANNOTH KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, P. O. VENGARA, KANNUR - 670 305. 3 LEELA K. V. AGED 78 YEARS D/O. KANNOTH KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, P. O. VENGARA, KANNUR - 670 305. 4 BHARATHI K. V. AGED 70 YEARS D/O. KANNOTH KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, P. O. VENGARA, KANNUR - 670 305. 5 BHANUMATHI K. V. AGED 76 YEARS D/O. KANNOTH KUNHIRAMAN NAIR, KUNNUMMAL HOUSE, P. O. VENGARA, KANNUR - 670 305. BY ADVS. MAHESH V RAMAKRISHNAN SMT.MARY LIYA SABU

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (PWD), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶10

2 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶11

¶12

WP(C) NO.12706/2020

¶13

PWD ROAD DIVISION, P. O. KANNUR, KANNUR - 670 001. 3 ASSISTNAT ENGINEER PWD ROAD DIVISION, MADAYI, PAZHAYANGADI P. O., KANNUR - 670 303. 4 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR CIVIL STATION, KANNUR - 670 002. 5 K. MUHAMMED HAJI PWD CONTRACTOR, M. P. K. MANZIL, EDAYANNOOR P. O., KANNUR - 670 595. 6 ADDL.R6.PRAKASAN.K.V AGED 64 YEARS, S/O. GOVINDHAN, CONVENOR, VENGARA KAVALA JANAKEEYA SAMITHY, VENGARA, VENGARA.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT KUNNOTH VALAPPIL HOUSE, VENGARA, VENGARA.P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT, PIN-670305. (ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED 7-12-2021 IN IA 2/2020). BY ADVS. SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA P.S.BINU

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21.12.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO.12706/2020

¶16

¶17

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶18

W.P.(C)No.12706 of 2020

¶19

Dated this the 21^st day of December, 2021

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The above writ petition is filed with

¶22

following prayers:

¶23

“(i) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to complete the construction of service road from the “MadayiTB-Muttam-Palakkod-Ettikulam High School road” to the respective properties of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible within a time frame as may be fixed by this Hon'ble court;

¶24

(ii) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to construct a retaining wall on the side of the newly formed road and to restore lateral support to the properties of the petitioners situate on the northern side of the newly formed road;

¶25

(iii) For all the costs of the Writ petition.

¶26

(iv) For such other and further reliefs, that are deem fit under the circumstances of the case.”

¶27

WP(C) NO.12706/2020

¶28

¶29

2. It is stated in the writ petition

¶30

that the southern boundary of the respective properties of the petitioners were PWD road namely “Madayi TB-Muttam-Palakkod Road”. A new project was introduced for improvement of the said road by re-aligning the old road. Ext.P3 is the estimate and Ext.P4 is the alignment plan. While forming the new road, the old road digged up to a depth of 8 feet to reduce the slope. Resultantly, according to the petitioner, the vehicular access to the properties of the petitioners have been fully cut off. It is the case of the petitioners that, owing to repeated requests, the respondents 2 and 3 agreed to restore vehicular access by providing a service road at their expense. Accordingly service road was partly made, granite stones were loosely paved but not fixed using road rollers and the work was discontinued at that stage. Fixation of granite stones and tarring

¶31

WP(C) NO.12706/2020

¶32

¶33

remains to be done. It is the case of the petitioners that, even now, plying of vehicles or even walking through that road is impossible. The petitioners submitted Exts.P7 and P8 representations requesting to complete the service road. But the same is not done till date. It is also stated in the writ petition that, while forming the new road, the old road was digged up to a depth of 8 feet there by loosing lateral support to the residential properties of the petitioners. According to the petitioners,

¶34

even if the work of service road is completed, the same cannot be used unless and until a retaining wall is constructed on the southern side of it. According to the petitioners, the properties of the petitioners are at serious threat of land erosion. Hence the petitioners seek

¶35

appropriate direction for time bound completion of service road and construction

¶36

WP(C) NO.12706/2020

¶37

of retaining wall, thereby restoring the vehicular access to their properties and securing the properties from the endangering situation. In such situation, this writ petition is filed.

¶38

3. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 22.07.2020, this Court

¶39

passed the following order:

¶40

“Admit.

¶41

2. The learned Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 4. Issue notice to the 5^th respondent by Speed post or by e-mail.

¶42

3. There will be an interim

¶43

direction to the respondents to complete the construction of the service road from the “Madayi TB-Muttam-Palakkod-Ettikulam High School road” to the properties of the petitioners so that the road becomes motorable and the petitioners get an access to their properties.”

¶44

4. Thereafter, when this matter came up for consideration on 24.09.2021, this Court

¶45

passed the following order:

¶46

“Learned Govt. Pleader submitted

¶47

WP(C) NO.12706/2020

¶48

¶49

that a proposal to construct a retaining wall is already submitted to the Government and awaiting a reply from the Govt.

¶50

There is a grievance to the petitioners that the service road is not constructed properly.

¶51

Learned Govt.Pleader will file a statement about the same before the next posting date. ”

¶52

5. As directed by this Court, a counter affidavit is filed by the 2^nd respondent on 23.11.2021. It will be better to extract paragraphs 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit.

¶53

“5. It is pertinent to submitted that in the heavily rainfall during the month of June 2021 a small portion about 6.00 meter length and 1 meter to 3 meter height of land slide has occurred. The land slide occurred not in the service road portion of petitioner's property. If occurred after the service road and there is no threat to public and no dwelling houses located nearby and no obstruction occurred for the traffic movement. The earth is removed at that time itself and moreover the petitioner's way side portion is hard laterite and no chance

¶54

WP(C) NO.12706/2020

¶55

for sliding of earth under normal weather condition. In order to protect the land slide portion, we have submitted a proposal for construction of retaining wall for a length of 150 meters.

¶56

6. It is respectfully submitted that at present there is no hindrance to the movement of vehicle through the service road, a proposal for construction of retaining wall for the land slide portion and service road portion is already submitted for approval. When the proposal got sanctioned, work will be executed.”

¶57

6. From the above statement it is clear

¶58

that a proposal for construction of retaining wall for the land slide portion and service

¶59

road portion is already submitted for approval and when the proposal got sanctioned, the work will be executed. In the light of the above statement of the 2^nd respondent, I think the grievance of the petitioners are redressed. The learned counsel for the petitioners take me through

¶60

¶61

WP(C) NO.12706/2020

¶62

Ext.P12 photographs to show the condition of

¶63

the service road. But the learned Government Pleader submitted that, as per the agreement, the work is already done and the remaining work is to be done only after getting sanction from the appropriate authority. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the authorities have already taken up this matter

¶64

and once the sanction is obtained, the authorities will do the needful in accordance to law.

¶65

In such circumstances, according to me, this writ petition can be disposed of directing the authorities to do the needful within a time frame. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of directing the competent officers among the respondents to do the needful to see that the construction of retaining wall for the land slide portion and the completion of the service road (black

¶66

topping or concreting) is done, as

¶67

WP(C) NO.12706/2020

¶68

¶69

expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If there is any difficulty in completing the work, the competent officers among the respondents are free to approach this Court for an extension with adequate documents showing the steps taken to complete the work.

¶70

Sd/-

¶71

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

WP(C) NO.12706/2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12706/2020

¶76

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS

¶77

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE REG. SALE	DEED
	NO.1797 OF 1997 SRO PAZHAY DATED 11.06.1997.	ANGADI
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REGD. DEE	D OF
	PARTITION NO.1794/1997 PAZHAYANGADI DATED 11.06.1997.	SRO
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ESTIMATE	DATED
	22.5.2020 WITH RESPECT TO	THE
	CONSTRUCTION OF MADYI-TB-M PALAKKOD-ETTIKULAM HIGH SCHOOL R	UTTAM- OAD.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ALIGNMENT PLA MADYI-TB-MUTTAM-PALAKKOD-ETTIKUL HIGH SCHOOL ROAD.	N FOR AM
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER	DATED
	13.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE	2ND
	PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT	.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE	POSTAL
	ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 13.0	2.2020
	SIGNED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER	DATED
	28.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE	1ST
	PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT	NO.2
	WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER	DATED
	28.05.2020 ISSUED BY THE	1ST
	PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.	NO.3
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT PETITION 19.06.2020 SUBMITTED BY	DATED THE
	PETITIONERS BEFORE THE RESPONDE TO 4.	NTS 2
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

¶78

WP(C) NO.12706/2020

¶79

¶80

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION DATED 02.02.2021 ISSUED BY DR.U.V.SHENOY PAYYANUR. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE SERVICE ROAD. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

¶81

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶82

//TRUE COPY//

¶83

PA TO JUDGE

Ramachandran K. v. Vs State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramachandran K. v. Vs 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

Adv. Dheeraj Ravi Vs State of Kerala

M/S. S.B. Group, Vs Kerala Financial Corporation

Kerala Vyapari Vyavasayi Ekopana Vs State of Kerala

The State of Kerala Vs Libin

P M R Construction Company Vs State of Kerala

Indus Towers Limited Vs Maradu Municipality