Disposed

Radhakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jul 2021WP(C)/4300/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners approached the Court alleging encroachment of road puramboke and threat of eviction. The Court directed the Third Respondent to issue notice for survey and demarcation within two weeks, requiring petitioners to produce title deeds and records, ensuring the exercise adheres to the law and relevant Acts.

What did the court decide?

Court directed Respondents to issue notice for property measurement and survey within two weeks/months, requiring petitioners to produce title deeds before proceeding with eviction under relevant stat

Radhakrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 4300 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 1^ST DAY OF JULY 2021 / 10TH ASHADHA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 4300 OF 2021

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

1 RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI AGED 59 YEARS

¶9

S/O.LATE BHASKARAN PILLAI, PULLAMPALLIL-KRISHNAHARI, KUNNATHUR EAST P.O., KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM - 690 540

¶10

2 VASANTHI AMMA AGED 78 YEARS W/O.LATE BHASKARAN PILLAI, PULLAMPALLIL, KUNNATHUR EAST P.O., KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, SASTHAMKOTTA, KOLLAM 690 540

¶11

BY ADV B.MOHANLAL

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA REP.BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶14

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CUTCHERY P.O., KOLLAM 691 019

¶15

3 THE TAHASILDAR TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUR P.O., KOLLAM 690 519

¶16

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUR P.O., KOLLAM 690 519

¶17

5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, BEACH ROAD, KOLLAM 691 001.

¶18

6 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KARUNAGAPPALLY P.O., KOLLAM 690 518

¶19

WP(C) NO. 4300 OF 2021

¶20

¶21

7 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SASTHAMCOTTAH, SASTHAMCOTTAH P.O., KOLLAM 690 520

¶22

8 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KOTTARAKKARA, KOTTARAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM 691 546.

¶23

SMT VIDHYA A.C, GP

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C) NO. 4300 OF 2021

¶26

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The 1st petitioner is the son of the 2nd petitioner. The petitioners state that the 1st petitioner is the owner in title, possession and enjoyment of 1.40 Ares of property comprised in Re-Sy.No.400/16 in Block No.16 of the Kunnathoor Village. It is on the strength of Settlement Deed No.4472/1995 of the Sasthamcotta Sub Registry that he obtained title over the property. He has effected mutation in his favour and has been paying tax as evident from Exhibit-P1. Late Sri Bhaskaran, the husband of the 2nd petitioner was the absolute owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 8.19 Ares, falling in Re-Sy.No.400/5 in Block No.16 of the Kunnathoor Village. He assigned a portion of his property to his son Sri Sivasankara Pillai, and he was left with 6.67 Ares, which is now being enjoyed by the 2nd petitioner as the wife and legal heir. To substantiate the said fact, the petitioners rely on Exhibit P1(a) receipt.

¶29

The petitioners contend that the respondents are now asserting

¶30

that the petitioners have encroached upon road poramboke and put up constructions. According to the petitioners there is not even a speck of truth in the said allegation. When steps were taken to demolish the constructions put up by the petitioners, the 1st respondent lodged Ext.P5 complaint before the higher authorities. However no action was taken. It is contended that the petitioners and their family are under a threat of eviction and demolition of the

¶31

WP(C) NO. 4300 OF 2021

¶32

¶33

structures put up by them in the properties covered under Exts.P1 and P2. It is in the afore circumstances that they have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶34

i) To call for the records leading to the proceedings from the Respondents 5 to 8 and issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the proceedings of the Respondents to evict the petitioners from 1.40 and 6.67 Ares of property comprised in ReSy.No.400/16 and 400/5 in Block No.16 of Kunnathur Village and to demolish the Building No:13/674, 13/693, 13/661, 13/662, 13/663, 13/664 and No:13/659 of Kunnathur Grama Panchayath covered as per Ext.P1 to P2(a).

¶35

ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction commanding the Respondents not to evict the petitioners from 1.40 and 6.67 Ares of property comprised in Re-Sy.No:400/16 and 400/5 in Block No:16 of Kunnathur Village and not to demolish the Building No:13/674, 13/693, 13/661, 13/662, 13/663, 13/664 and No:13/659 of Kunnathur Grama Panchayath covered as per Ext.P1 to P2(a).

¶36

iii) To declare that the petitioners are entitled to continue occupation and enjoyment of 1.40 and 6.67 Ares of property comprised in Re-Sy No:400/16 and 400/5 in Block No:16 of Kunnathur Village and the Building No:13/674, 13/693, 13/661, 13/662, 13/663, 13/664 and No:13/659 of Kunnathur Grama Panchayath covered as per Ext.P1 to P2(a).

¶37

iv) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate order or direction commanding the Respondents 6 and 8 to consider and dispose of Ext.P5 within a stipulated time as directed by this Hon’ble Court and not to evict the petitioners from 1.40 and 6.67 Ares of property comprised in Re-Sy No:400/16 and 400/5 in Block No:16 of Kunnathur village and not to demolish the Building No:13/674, 13/693, 13/661, 13/662, 13/663, 13/664 and No:13/659 of Kunnathur Grama Panchayath covered as per Ext.P1 to P2(a)

¶38

WP(C) NO. 4300 OF 2021

¶39

¶40

As directed by this Court, a statement has been filed by the 8th respondent. It is stated that the petitioners are residing on the sides of the Kottarakkara - Sasthamcotta Road, the widening of which has been included in the KIFBI Project of 2016-2017. As part of road widening, a survey was conducted by the Tahsildar, Kunnathoor and the road boundary was demarcated and survey stones were planted. Immediately thereafter, the encroachers were put on notice and they were shown the actual boundary and the extent of encroachment carried out by them. It is further stated that when the property of the petitioners was surveyed and demarcated by the 3rd respondent, it was noticed that the petitioners had constructed car porch and had extended their building portions to the road puramboke. In paragraph 6 of the Statement, it is stated thus:

¶41

“It is submitted that, as survey was conducted in the year, 2019 the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue necessary directions to Revenue Authorities to demarcate the boundary of the said portion of PWD Road “Kottarakkara - Sasthamkotta after issuing notice to the encroachers and effected (sic). This respondent will evict encroachment only in accordance with the provisions of Kerala Highway Protection Act & Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1919”

¶42

I have considered the submissions advanced. Admittedly, no notice has been issued to the petitioners either under the Highway Protection Act or under the Land Conservancy Act. Now that the respondents have undertaken in their statement that a fresh survey would be conducted in the presence of the petitioners taking note of their title deeds and other records, I am of the view that necessary directions can be issued so that the entire

¶43

WP(C) NO. 4300 OF 2021

¶44

¶45

controversy is resolved.

¶46

Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶47

(a) Within a period of two weeks from today, notice shall be issued to the petitioners and the affected parties, if any, by the 3rd respondent informing the specific date on which their property would be measured to ascertain whether the petitioners have encroached upon the road puramboke and put up structures.

¶48

(b) The petitioners shall produce their title deeds, possession certificates, site plan, sketch etc. which was submitted by them at the time of construction of the building.

¶49

(c) The respondents shall conduct a survey and demarcate the property on the strength of the revenue records and survey plan after perusing the records made available by the petitioners. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of two months. If it is found that the petitioners have encroached upon portions of road puramboke, the respondents shall issue appropriate notice under the relevant statute and proceed strictly in adherence with law.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶52

JUDGE

¶53

IAP

¶54

WP(C) NO. 4300 OF 2021

¶55

¶56

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4300/2021

¶57

PETITIONERS EXHIBITS:

¶58

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 26.6.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD 2020-2021 EXHIBIT P1(A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 1.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD 2020-2021 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 14.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KUNNATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE 1ST PETITIONER, FOR THE PERIOD 2020-2021 EXHIBIT P2 (A) THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.1.2021 ISSUED BY KUNNATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE 2ND PETITIONER, IN THE NAME OF HER HUSBAND SRI. BHASKARAN PILLAI. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 11/6/2018 ISSUED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, S.B.I., KOTTARAKKARA TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONERS HAVING ACCESS TO THE P.W.D ROAD KOTTARAKKARA BHARANIKAVU SASTHAMCOTTAH EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.2.2021 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR P.W.D. AND THE RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 AND ITS POSTAL RECEIPTS.

¶59

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

Radhakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishna Pillai 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

Shereefa K.K. Vs State of Kerala

K.P.Aswini Kumar Vs the District Police Chief, Kannur

K.v.Devassy Vs the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Board

Ayisha T.K Vs District Police Chief

Sathian M. Vs State of Kerala

Thomas Jacob Vs K. Biju