Disposed

Abdul Kalam v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Mar 2021WP(C)/4025/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged constructions and proceedings regarding a disputed property violating a civil court order of status quo. The High Court noticed the interim order remained in force and remanded the matter for further reports without deciding legal contentions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted time; request to maintain status quo recorded; writ petition closed with objections left open pending further reports from trial court.

Abdul Kalam Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

W.P.(C) No.4025 OF 2021(C)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 ABDUL KALAM, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. LATE MOIDEEN KANNU NOW RESIDING AT NELLIMATTU VILA, VIZHINJAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 521.

¶8

2 JUMAILA BEEVI, AGED 72 YEARS, W/O.A.M.HANEEF, NOW RESIDING NO.5/46, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY-682 002.

¶9

3 H.M.FAIZAL, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.A.M.HANEEF, NOW RESIDING NO.5/46, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY-682 002.

¶10

4 H.M.FIRDOUZ, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O.A.M.HANEEF, NOW RESIDING NO.5/46, BAZAR ROAD, MATTANCHERRY-682 002.

¶11

5 SULFATH.H., AGED 47 YEARS, D/O.A.M.HANEEF, RESIDING AT LITTY DYING AMMAN NAGAR, 159,AMMAN NADA, PATTATHANAM, KOLLAM-691 021.

¶12

6 ABDUL SALAM, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. BEEMA BEEVI, RESIDING AT 65/1035, SUBAH.OPP. GOVT.LPS, THIRUVALLAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 027.

¶13

7 S.ABDUL KALAM, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. BEEMA BEEVI, RESIDING AT THAHA MANZIL, THEKKEKULAM LANE, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 501.

¶14

W.P.(C) No.4025 OF 2021(C)

¶15

-2-

¶16

8 SUHAIMA, AGED 52 YEARS, D/O. BEEMA BEEVI, RESIDING AT THAHA MANZIL, THEKKEKULAM LANE, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 501.

¶17

9 SAMEEMA AGED 49 YEARS, D/O. BEEMA BEEVI, RESIDING AT THAHA MANZIL, THEKKEKULAM LANE, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 501.

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.P.I.NAJUMAL HUSSAIN SMT.ANJALI B CHANDRAN

¶19

RESPONDENTS:

¶20

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶21

2 THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYATH, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶22

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, KUDAPPANAKUNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043.

¶23

4 THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033

¶24

5 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 014.

¶25

W.P.(C) No.4025 OF 2021(C)

¶26

-3-

¶27

6 CITY CORPORATION, CORPORATE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶28

7 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CIRCLE OFFICE, KAZHAKOOTTAM POLICE STATION, KAZHAKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582.

¶29

8 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAZHAKOOTTAM POLICE STATION, KAZHAKOOTTAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 582.

¶30

R1-R5,

¶31

R7-R8 BY SRI.P.NARAYANAN, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER R6 BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) R6 BY SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR,SC,TVPM CORPORATION

¶32

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶33

W.P.(C) No.4025 OF 2021(C)

¶34

-4-

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioners, who are legal heirs of late Abu Backar, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 5^th respondent to provide police protection of sufficient strength to ward off the atrocities committed by respondents 1 to 4 and 6 in the property, covered by Ext.P1 sale deed, in violation of the order of status quo granted by the civil court. The petitioners have also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to do anything in violation of order of status quo dated 18.09.2020, viz., Ext.P12 on the file of the 1^st Additional Subordinate Judges Court, Thiruvananthapuram; and a writ of mandamus commanding the 5^th respondent not to proceed with the opening ceremony of the Mini Civil Station and all other construction activities, as envisaged by respondents 1 to 4 and 6 in the property covered by Ext.P1.

¶37

On 16.02.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.44 of 2020, the 1^st Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram has granted an order of status

¶38

W.P.(C) No.4025 OF 2021(C)

¶39

-5-

¶40

quo on 18.09.2020, till the date of disposal of the injunction application and the said order is still in force. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are yet to be issued with a certified copy of that order. Therefore, the Registry was directed to call for a report from the 1^st Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. A copy of the order of status quo was also directed to be enclosed along with that report. When this writ petition was taken up again at 3.00 pm, Registry has obtained a report from the 1^st Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, as per which an order is granted on 18.09.2020, whereby the parties are directed to maintain status quo as per the commission report, till the disposal of injunction application.

¶41

A copy of the order dated 18.09.2020 in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.44 of 2020 was also enclosed along with that report, as per which the Government of Kerala, represented by the Chief Secretary; the Government of Kerala, represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat; the District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram; and the Director of Panchayat, Thiruvananthapuram are the defendants in O.S.No.44 of 2020. The learned Additional Advocate General, who entered appearance for

¶42

W.P.(C) No.4025 OF 2021(C)

¶43

-6-

¶44

respondents 1 to 5, 7 and 8 sought time to get instructions. The 6^th respondent Corporation entered appearance through learned Senior Counsel.

¶45

On 17.01.2021, when this writ petition came up for consideration, this Court noticed that the order of status quo granted by the 1^st Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram is still in force. Adv.Sri.V.Narayanan, the learned Senior Government Pleader took notice on admission for respondents 1 to 5 and 7 and

¶46

The learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation took notice on admission for the 6^th respondent. The learned Additional Advocate General sought time to file statement of the 3^rd respondent District Collector.

¶47

Along with the memo filed by the learned Senior Government Pleader, the statement of the 3^rd respondent is placed on record. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of that statement read thus;

¶48

“2. The petitioner in the Writ Petition had filed an original suit as OS No.44/2020 before the Honourable 1^st Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Thiruvananthapuram in connection with the ownership and title of the said land and the Honourable Court vide its interim order dated 18.09.2020 in IA No.02/2020 has issued an order to maintain the status quo till the disposal of the petition and

¶49

W.P.(C) No.4025 OF 2021(C)

¶50

-7-

¶51

the same was not violated by any of the respondents in this Writ Petition. It is submitted that the respondents will not change the physical nature of the property so long as there exists the Status quo order passed by the Trial Court, and without getting the order modified by the Court below. 3. It is humbly submitted before this Honourable Court that the petitioner in the Writ Petition had not submitted any documents connected with this property before this respondent or respective Taluk or Village Offices challenging the Resurvey conducted by the Survey Authorities. The petitioner had never paid the land tax in connection with this property even before the resurvey or after the same. It is also submitted that this petitioner had never approached the District Collector against the findings that the land is Government Puramboke. Now the Government have decided in principle to construct a Mini Civil Station in this land.”

¶52

Today, when this writ petition is taken up for consideration, along with I.A.No.1 of 2021, the petitioners have placed on record Ext.P30 commission report. That interlocutory application is allowed by a separate order.

¶53

The learned Senior Government Pleader, on instructions from the 3^rd respondent District Collector, would submit that, till appropriate orders are passed by the 1^st Additional Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram in I.A.No.2 of 2020 in O.S.No.44 of 2020, status quo in respect of the property in question shall be

¶54

W.P.(C) No.4025 OF 2021(C)

¶55

-8-

¶56

maintained.

¶57

In such circumstances, recording the said stand taken in the statement filed by the 3^rd respondent, this writ petition is closed, leaving open the legal and factual contentions raised by the parties to O.S.No.44 of 2020.

¶58

Sd/-

¶59

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶60

bpr

¶61

W.P.(C) No.4025 OF 2021(C)

¶62

-9-

¶63

APPENDIX

¶64

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶65

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFIED COPY OF SALE DEED NO.3862 OF 1120 M.E.OF THE KAZHAKOOTTAM ADDITIONAL SUB REGISTRY OFFICE
EXHIBIT P1A	TRUE COPY OF EXHIBIT P1
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16.12.2019 ISSUED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONERS TO RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE KAZHAKOOTTAM SETTLEMENT REGISTER DATED 02.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CENTRAL SURVEY OFFICE
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED C/114/18 DATED 07.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, KAZHAKOOTTAM
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO.BP1/1801/18/PTCD DATED 03.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, POTHENCODE BLOCK PANACHAYATH TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF BEARING NO.BPI/1801/18/PTCD DATED 04.12.2018 ISSUED BY THE APPELLATE OFFICER, BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER TO THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF BEARING NO.BPI/1801/18/PTCD DATED 08.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ,POTHENCODE, BLOCK PANCHAYATH OFFICE THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE NEW ITEMS APPEARING IN MALAYALA MANORAMA NEWSPAPER DATED 18.02.2020 WITH REGARD TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF MINI CIVIL STATION INT HE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS

¶66

W.P.(C) No.4025 OF 2021(C)

¶67

-10-

¶68

EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS 44 OF 2020 ON THE FILE OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 26.02.2020
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 26.08.2020 IN OS 44 OF 2020 ON THE FILES OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AS IA 2 OF 2020 DATED 26.02.2020 IN OS 44 OF 2020 ON THE FILES OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE DAILY STATUS IN OS 44 OF 2020 TAKEN ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 18.9.2020 FROM THE DISTRICT COURT WEBSITE
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 1.10.2020 SUBMITTED BY RESPONDENTS 1 T0 4 IN OS 44 OF 2020 ON THE FILES OF THE FIRST ADDITIONAL SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE PRINT OUT OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE TREES CUT DOWN AND WASTE COMMITTED IN THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS BY THE RESPONDENTS
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.2.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.2.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER OF KERALA
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 9.2.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P18	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.2.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS

¶69

W.P.(C) No.4025 OF 2021(C)

¶70

-11-

¶71

EXHIBIT P19	BEFORE THE 4TH R TRUE COPY OF THE 8.2.2021 SUBMITT BEFORE THE 5TH R	ESPONDENT REPRESENTATION DATED ED BY THE PETITIONERS ESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P20	TRUE COPY OF THE 9.2.2021 SUBMITT BEFORE THE 6TH R	REPRESENTATION DATED ED BY THE PETITIONERS ESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P21	TRUE COPY OF THE RAMSON BUSINESS ISSUANCE OF THE HON'BLE CHIEF MI	RECEIPT ISSUED BY CENTRE EVIDENCING REPRESENTATIONS TO THE NISTER DATED 9.2.2021
EXHIBIT P22	TRUE COPY OF THE RAMSON BUSINESS ISSUANCE OF THE HON'BLE CHIEF MI 9.2.2021	RECEIPT ISSUED BY CENTRE EVIDENCING REPRESENTATIONS TO THE NISTER TOURISM DATED
EXHIBIT P23	TRUE COPY OF THE RAMSON BUSINESS ISSUANCE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT D	RECEIPT ISSUED BY CENTRE EVIDENCING REPRESENTATIONS TO THE ATED 9.2.2021
EXHIBIT P24	TRUE COPY OF THE RAMSON BUSINESS ISSUANCE OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT D	RECEIPT ISSUED BY CENTRE EVIDENCING REPRESENTATIONS TO THE ATED 9.2.2021
EXHIBIT P25	TRUE COPY OF THE RAMSON BUSINESS ISSUANCE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT D	RECEIPT ISSUED BY CENTRE EVIDENCING REPRESENTATIONS TO THE ATED 9.2.2021
EXHIBIT P26	TRUE COPY OF THE RAMSON BUSINESS ISSUANCE OF THE HON'BLE MAYOR,CO THIRUVANANTHAPUR	RECEIPT ISSUED BY CENTRE EVIDENCING REPRESENTATIONS TO THE RPORATION OF AM DATED 9.2.2021
EXHIBIT P27	TRUE COPY OF THE RAMSON BUSINESS ISSUANCE OF THE REVENUE DIVISION THIRUVANANTHAPUR	RECEIPT ISSUED BY CENTRE EVIDENCING REPRESENTATIONS TO THE AL OFFICER, AM DATED 9.2.2021

¶72

W.P.(C) No.4025 OF 2021(C)

¶73

-12-

¶74

EXHIBIT P28	TRUE COPY OF THE RAMSON BUSINESS ISSUANCE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT D	RECEIPT ISSUED BY CENTRE EVIDENCING REPRESENTATIONS TO THE ATED 9.2.2021
EXHIBIT P29	TRUE COPY OF THE RAMSON BUSINESS ISSUANCE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT D	RECEIPT ISSUED BY CENTRE EVIDENCING REPRESENTATIONS TO THE ATED 9.2.2021
EXHIBIT P30	TRUE COPY OF THE 09.02.2021 FILED PURSUANCE OF THE OS 44 OF 2020 ON ADDITIONAL SUBOR THIRUVANANTHAPUR	COMMISSION REPORT DATED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN ORDERS IA 7 OF 2021 IN THE FILE OF THE FIRST DINATE JUDGES COURT, AM

¶75

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

Abdul Kalam v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Kalam v. 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

Principal in-Charge, Vs the Station House Officer

Biju Antony Vs the Commissioner of Police

Abad Jinna Sahib Vs State of Kerala

Jayalakshmi, Vs the Station House Officer

Abdulraheem Vs Smt.Dr.Priya Mohan

Rasiya Vs Smt.Dr.Priya Mohan