This writ petition sought to quash an order rejecting representation regarding puramboke land encroachment. The Court held the order violated natural justice due to lack of personal hearing as per prior directions.
Ext.P9 order dated 13.11.2020 quashed; respondent directed to reconsider matter and take decision within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 30TH POUSHA, 1942
WP(C).No.27603 OF 2020(A)
PETITIONER:
ANIL V. A. AGED 65 YEARS S/O. KUNHU VAIDHYAR, PERUMBODATH PARAMBIL, S.R.M. ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL
RESPONDENTS:
-2-
WP(C).No.27603 OF 2020(A)
6 JOSY S/O. THOMAS, VALIYAPARAMBIL, TAGORE LANE, S.R.M. ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 018.
7 SHEELA MADHU W/O. MADHU, 'BHARATHAM' TAGORE LANE, S.R.M. ROAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 018. R1 TO 4 BY SR.GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY R5 BY ADV. SMT.P.SAREENA GEORGE R6 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ R6 BY ADV. SMT.K.N.RAJANI R6 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SHIBU R6 BY ADV. SMT.P.A.SULEKHA R6 BY ADV. SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. R6 BY ADV. SMT.ANILA PETER R6 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP(C).No.27603 OF 2020(A)
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, who is residing near to Tagore Lane situated in S.R.M.Road, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 order dated 13.11.2020 issued by the 1st respondent Tahsildar (LR). The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 5 to take steps to remove the encroachment in the Government purmaboke situated in R.S.No.37/10 of Ernakulam Village, for the purpose of restoring the way leading to the residences of the petitioner and others.
“2. Apart from the challenge made as above, the petitioner has a case that puramboke land has been encroached by the party respondents and therefore,
-4-
WP(C).No.27603 OF 2020(A)
the land conservancy proceedings should be initiated. Taking note of the contention, this Court called for a report from the Village Officer. The Village Officer filed a report stating that there is no puramboke land as claimed by the petitioner between the petitioner's property and the seventh respondent's property.
If there is any encroachment, the petitioner is free to take up the matter before the Tahsildar. If the petitioner makes any representation before the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar shall take up the representation to its logical conclusion. If necessary the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor shall be obtained. Needful shall be done on such representation after hearing the petitioner and the party respondents within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the representation.”
jdugment, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 representation dated 30.09.2019 before the 1st respondent Tahsildar (LR). On receipt of the said representation, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P8 notice dated 16.11.2020 requiring the petitioner and others to appear for a personal hearing scheduled on 23.11.2020. Even before the issuance of Ext.P8 notice, the 1st
-5-
WP(C).No.27603 OF 2020(A)
respondent, by Ext.P9 order dated 13.11.2020 rejected Ext.P7 representation made by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P9 order is one issued in violation of the direction contained in Ext.P6 judgment and also in violation of the principles of natural justice.
-6-
WP(C).No.27603 OF 2020(A)
In such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of by setting aside Ext.P9 order dated 13.11.2020 of the 1st respondent and by directing the said respondent to reconsider the matter and take an appropriate decision, with notice to the petitioner and respondents 6 and 7, strictly in compliance
-7-
WP(C).No.27603 OF 2020(A)
with the direction contained in Ext.P6 judgment, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
AV/21/1
-8-
WP(C).No.27603 OF 2020(A)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS BEFORE THE RDO FORT KOCHI DATED 14.06.2016. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE RDO FORT KOCHI DATED 27.08.2016. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 20.06.2017. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C) NO.24113/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 7.6.2018 EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI DATED 10.06.2019. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C) NO.17651/2019 DATED 18.09.2019. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONE R BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30.09.2019. EXHIBIT P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 16.11.2020. EXHIBIT P9 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13.11.2020.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Ext.P9 order dated 13.11.2020 can be sustained in law.
Whether the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of being heard before the rejection of representation.
Anil V.A.
The Tahsildar (LR) Kanayannur Taluk Office, Ernakulam District
The Village Officer Ernakulam Village, Ernakulam District
The District Surveyor, Ernakulam
The Taluk Surveyor Kanayannur Taluk Office, Ernakulam District
Kochi Municipal Corporation
Anil K.Narendran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Anil K.Narendran
Parties & counsel
