Dismissed

Parukutty Amma and Another v. the State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC2 Nov 2021WP(C)/2422/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P.(C.) No. 2422 of 2010, the Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking enforcement of stop memos and cancellation of building permits. The Court held, pending a fresh cause of action, that no relief could be granted as an interim order and a consequential order by the Revenue Divisional Officer had already been issued. The petition was closed.

What did the court decide?

Petition closed with liberty to file fresh petition if fresh cause of action arises.

Parukutty Amma and Another Vs the State of Kerala and Others — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 2422 OF 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 2422 OF 2010

¶8

PETITIONERS:

¶9

1 PARUKUTTY AMMA, W/O.GOPALAN NAIR, AGED 85 YEARS, MOOKKANATH VEETTIL, THIRUVEGAPPURA, OTTAPALAM.

¶10

2 M.GOPALAKRISHNAN S/O.PARUKUTTY AMMA, AGED 58 YEARS,, DO. DO.

¶11

BY ADV SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶15

PALAKKAD.

¶16

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶17

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER THIRUVEGAPPURA, OTTAPALAM,, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶18

5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER KRISHI BHAVAN, THIRUVEGAPPURA.

¶19

6 THIRUVEGAPPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POST KAIPPURAM, THIRUVEGAPPURA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT- 679 308.

¶20

7 TALHATH MAHAMOOD, S/O.LATE HAMZA KINANGATTIL,THIRUVEGAPPURA,OTTAPALAM,REP.BY ITS

¶21

WP(C) NO. 2422 OF 2010 2

¶22

POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MOIDU, S/O.MOHAMMED, KINANGATTIL,THIRUVEGAPPURA, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 8 GAREEBI NAVAS MOINUDHEEN HASSAN SANCHARI S/O.LATE HAMZA, KINANGATTIL,THIRUVEGAPPURA,, OTTAPALAM. BY ADVS. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN SMT.RASHMI.K.M, SR.GP

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C) NO. 2422 OF 2010

¶25

¶26

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶27

W.P.(C.) No.2422 of 2010

¶28

Dated this the 2^nd day of November, 2021

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :

¶31

“(i) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to initiate appropriate action to implement Exhibits P3 to P5 and P9 stop memo issued by the 4^th respondent immediately;

¶32

(ii) call for the records leading to Exhibit P8 and peruse the same and restrain the 8th respondent from proceeding with the construction activities in the property covered by Exhibit P7;

¶33

(iii) direct the 1^st respondent to initiate appropriate action against the 3rd respondent for not enforcing the stop memos issued by the 4^th respondent.

¶34

(iv) direct the 6th respondent to cancel the building permit issued in favour of the 8^th respondent.

¶35

(v) issue such other writ, direction or order as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶36

(vi) call for the records leading to Exhibit P10 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶37

(vii) call for the records leading to Ext. R7(c) building permit and set aside the same by issuing a writ of

¶38

WP(C) NO. 2422 OF 2010

¶39

¶40

certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction and further direct the 2^nd respondent to take action against respondents 7 and 8 in accordance with Sec. 13 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act, 2008.”

¶41

The petitioners own paddy field in re-survey No. 216/12 of Thiruvegappura Village and on the immediate north of the petitioners' property, respondent No.8 owns paddy field, comprised in re-survey No. 216/8 of Thiruvegappura Village. The petitioners and respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are the members of Kaladikunnu Padasekhara Samithi and Ext.P2 evidenced the receipt of bonus for cultivating paddy. It is the case of the petitioners that during January 2008, 8^th respondent attempted to convert the paddy field comprised in re-survey No.216/8. Based on the complaints submitted by the petitioners, Ext.P3 stop memo was issued by the 4^th respondent on 14.1.2008. Ext.P4 is another letter dated 11.4.2008 issued by the 4^th respondent to the 3^rd respondent RDO to initiate appropriate action against the 8^th respondent. Ext.P5 is another stop memo issued by the Village Officer. Ext.P6 is the complaint dated 17.4.2008 submitted by the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that while so, on 3.5.2008, the 8^th respondent

¶42

WP(C) NO. 2422 OF 2010

¶43

¶44

transferred the property in favour of the 7^th respondent by Ext.P7 sale deed. It is the further case of the petitioners that by Ext.P8, the 6^th respondent withdrew the building permit issued in favour of the 7^th respondent. Ext.P9 is the latest stop memo issued by the 4^th respondent. According to the petitioners, except issuing stop memos, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 did not enforce the same in the manner in which they are duty bound to act. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondents 2 to 6, this writ petition is filed.

¶45

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

¶46

When this writ petition came up for consideration on

¶47

5.3.2010, this Court passed the following order.

¶48

"Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 7 and 8 and the learned counsel appearing for the 6^th respondent Grama Panchayath.

¶49

It is a case where allegation is raised against respondents 7 and 8 that they are converting the property for making construction of a residential building. The matter has already been considered at different stages by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions also. Exhibit P10 order now in force passed by the Tribunal is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶50

WP(C) NO. 2422 OF 2010

¶51

¶52

The parties have got disputes regarding various aspects including the physical state of the land in question as well as that of the adjacent lands. Learned counsel for the petitioners assert that his parties are cultivating their land with paddy. Learned counsel for respondents 7 and 8 disputes cultivation of any paddy in that area. The respondents have produced different photographs also.

¶53

The Village Officer had issued stop memos as per Exhibits P3 and P9. Exhibit P6 is the representation filed by the 1^st petitioner before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ottappalam. According to the learned counsel for the 7th respondent Exhibit R7(k) is the petition filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer wherein the only prayer is to restore the pathway:

¶54

Whatever that be, it is upto the Revenue Divisional Officer to take a decision after hearing both parties and after verifying the details with regard to the properties also.

¶55

Therefore, pending the writ petition, there will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to conduct due enquiry in regard to Exhibits P6 and R7(k) petitions and take an appropriate decision after hearing the petitioners and respondents 6 to 8 within a period of two months. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents 7 and 8 may be restrained from continuing with the construction. Learned counsel for the respondents 7 and 8 submitted that construction is at an advanced stage and the balance of convenience is in their favour especially in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal. It is made clear that the constructions if any made by respondents 7 and 8 will be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The petitioners will produce a copy of this interim order before the 3^rd respondent for compliance. Hand over to both sides. "

¶56

Based on the above direction, the Revenue Divisional

¶57

WP(C) NO. 2422 OF 2010

¶58

¶59

Officer passed order No.G 144/2001/08 dated 28.6.2010. The above order is not challenged in this writ petition. If the petitioners or the respondents are aggrieved by the same, they are free to take appropriate steps in accordance to law. In the light of the interim order already passed and the consequential order dated 28.6.2010 by the Revenue Divisional Officer, I think no relief can be granted in this writ petition.

¶60

Therefore, this writ petition is closed, giving liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate action, if there is any fresh cause of action.

¶61

SD/-

¶62

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶63

SKS

¶64

WP(C) NO. 2422 OF 2010

¶65

¶66

APPENDIX

¶67

PETITIONERS EXTS:

¶68

EXT P1: COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE KALADIKUNNU PADASEKHARA SAMITHI DTD 23.6.2008

¶69

EXT P2: COPY OF CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY R5 DTD 12.3.2009 WITH ENCLOSURES. EXT P3: COPY OF STOP MEMO DTD 14.1.2008 ISSUED BY R4.

¶70

EXT P4:COPY OF LETTER DTD 11.4.2008 ISSUED BY R4 TO R3.

¶71

EXT P5: COPY OF LETTER DTD.7/6/2008 ISSUE BY R4 TO R3.

¶72

EXT P6: COPY OF PETITION DTD 17.4.2008 SUBMITTED BY 1ST PETITIONER TO R3.

¶73

EXT P7:COPY OF SALE DEED DTD 3.5.2008 EXECUTED BY R8 AND THE MOTHER IN FAVOUR OF R7.

¶74

EXT P8: COPY OF LETTER DTD 11.3.2009 FROM R6 TO R7.

¶75

EXT P9: COPY OF STOP MEMO DTD 13.1.2010 ISSUED BY R4.

¶76

EXT P10: COPY OF ORDER DTD 15.7.2009 IN APPEAL NO.494/2009 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶77

EXT P11: COPY OF COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY PETITIONERS IN APPEAL NO.269/2009 DTD 8.5.2009 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶78

RESPONDENTS EXTS:

¶79

EXT R7(A): COPY OF REPORT FILED BEFORE R3 BY JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF THE OFFICE OF R3

¶80

EXT R7(B): COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.45846/R.A1/08 DTD 31.7.2008 EXT R7(C): COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT.

¶81

EXT R7(D): COPY OF THE REPORTS PRODUCED BY R4 BEFORE R3.

¶82

EXT R7(E): COPY OF ORDER DTD 11.3.2009 CANCELLING THE BUILDING PERMIT

¶83

WP(C) NO. 2422 OF 2010

¶84

¶85

BY R6.

¶86

EXT R7(F): COPY OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM DTD 11.5.2009

¶87

EXT R7(G): STOP MEMO ISSUED BY R6 DTD 5.6.2009.

¶88

EXT R7(H): COPY OF STAY ORDER PASSED BY TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO.494/2009 DTD 16/6/2009.

¶89

EXT R7(I): COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PREMISES ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY OF THE RESPONDENT.

¶90

EXT R7(J): COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE COMPLETED STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING

¶91

EXT R7(K): COPY OF THE PETITION BEFORE R3 BY 1ST PETITIONER DTD 14.1.2008

¶92

EXT R7(L): COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DTD 15.7.2009

¶93

EXT R7(M): COPY OF THE REPLY DTD 2.2.2010

¶94

EXT R3(A): COPY OF ORDER NO.G.144/08 DTD 28.6.2010

¶95

/TRUE COPY/

¶96

P.A.TO JUDGE

Parukutty Amma and Another v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parukutty Amma and Another v. the State of Kerala and Others

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

M/S.Sunshine Plastics Vs M/S.Mahima Enterprises

Karmela Rani Training College, Kollam Vs State of Kerala

Subramanian K @ Nandu Vs the Secretary to Government, Public Works Department

Sabari Enterprises, Vs Superintending Engineer

Retnamma, Vs the Village Officer

Muhammed Iqbal, Vs Konni Grama Panchayat