Disposed

Nandakumar, v. the Tahasildar (L.R.)

Kerala HC6 Aug 2021WP(C)/4435/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition questioned the validity of a notice regarding encroachment on land claimed by the petitioners. The court directed relevant authorities to survey and demarcate the disputed property in accordance with a previous judgment, ensuring the presence of all parties to determine any potential encroachment on road puramboke.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to survey and demarcate the property on 12.8.2021 at 11 a.m.; reserved right for officials to invoke Rule 13A of Land Conservancy Rules if encroachment is found.

Nandakumar, Vs the Tahasildar (L.R.) — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 4435 OF 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶6

FRIDAY, THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1943

¶7

WP(C) NO. 4435 OF 2021

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

1 NANDAKUMAR,

¶10

AGED 51 YEARS,

¶11

S/O RAMANKUTTY NAIR, MANNAKUNNEL HOUSE, PADUVA P.O., MATTAKKARA, KOTTAYAM-686 564.

¶12

2 MINI NANDAKUMAR, AGED 43 YEARS, W/O NANDAKUMAR, MANNAKUNNEL HOUSE, PADUVA P.O., MATTAKKARA, KOTTAYAM-686 564.

¶13

BY ADV BINOY VASUDEVAN

¶14

RESPONDENT/S:

¶15

1 THE TAHASILDAR (L.R.), TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶16

2 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM, CIVIL STATION, P.O.-686 001.

¶17

3 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PAMPADI P.O., KOTTAYAM-686 502.

¶18

4 THE TALUK SURVEYOR, KOTTAYAM TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, CIVIL STATION P.O.KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶19

WP(C) NO. 4435 OF 2021 2 *5 ADDL.R5: K.A.JOSEPH, AGED 77 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT KANIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PADUVA P.O., MATTAKKARA, KOTTAYAM-686 564. *6 ADDL.R6: M.S.RAJU, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.SIVARAMA PILLAI, MULLOOR, PADUVA P.O., MATTAKKARA, KOTTAYAM-686 564. * ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 5 AND 6 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER JUDGMENT DATED 06.08.2021. BY ADV.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM

¶20

SMT K AMMINIKUTTY, SR GP

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.08.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

WP(C) NO. 4435 OF 2021

¶23

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The petitioners claim that they are the absolute owners in title and possession of the property having an extent of 53 cents falling in Sy.Nos.130/15, 130/24-3 and 130/14 of Akalakunnam Village, in Kottayam Taluk. According to them, they had acquired the property on the strength of Document Nos.33/2005 and 940/2014 of the S.R.O. Kozhuvanal.

¶26

While so, for the purpose of widening of the Chuvanna PlavuKummannoor road, Ext.P3 notice was issued to the petitioners proposing to measure out the property for determining the exact extent of the road puramboke. Apprehending arbitrary action on the part of the respondents, the petitioners rushed to this Court and filed W.P.(C) No.1737 of 2018. The writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P5 judgment dated 01.04.2019, whereby this Court directed the Tahsildar and the Taluk Surveyor to measure out the property in the presence of the petitioners. The revenue authorities as well as the petitioners were asked to be present on 25.04.2019 at 11.00 a.m. for the purpose of carrying out the survey and demarcation of the property. This Court had also ordered that if the petitioners are found in illegal occupation of any portion of the puramboke land, necessary proceedings under Rule 13A of

¶27

WP(C) NO. 4435 OF 2021 4

¶28

the Land Conservancy Act and Rules framed thereunder can be invoked.

¶29

The grievance of the petitioners herein is that no measurement as ordered by this Court was carried out on 25.04.2019. Later Exhibit-P7 notice was issued by the Tahsildar (LR) purportedly at the instance of the Assistant Engineer, PWD (Roads), Pampady to mark out the encroachment. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash Exhibit-P7 and also for a further direction to respondents 1 to 4 not to proceed with Ext.P7 without complying with the directions in Exhibit-P5 judgment and for incidental reliefs.

¶30

I have heard Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.

¶31

An application seeking impleadment was filed by nearby residents which was allowed. Sri. Liji J. Vadakkedom appears for the additional respondents.

¶32

The only point raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the directions in Exhibit-P5 judgment have not been complied with.

¶33

The learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that in

¶34

WP(C) NO. 4435 OF 2021 5

¶35

fact even prior to the date fixed by this Court, the survey was carried out by the Taluk Surveyor and the Tahsildar. However, the learned Government Pleader submitted that in order to avoid any further controversy, the directions in Exhibit-P5 judgment can be complied with and the Taluk Surveyor and the Tahsildar concerned shall measure out the property on 12.08.2021 at 11.00 a.m.

¶36

Sri.Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Sri. Liji J. Vadakkedom, are agreeable to the said suggestion. The learned counsel appearing for the parties undertook that they shall be present at the spot on 12.8.2021 at 11 am and no further notices need be issued.

¶37

Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents 1 and 4 to survey and demarcate the property as directed by this Court in the judgment dated 1.4.2019 in W.P.(C) No.1737/2018 on 12.8.2011 at 11 am in the presence of the petitioners, the respondents 2 and 3 or their authorised representatives and other affected parties including the additional respondents. If after completion of the survey, it is found that the petitioners have encroached upon any portion of road puramboke, the competent among official respondents will be entitled to invoke Rule 13A of the Land Conservancy Rules as ordered in the above judgment. On the other

¶38

WP(C) NO. 4435 OF 2021 6

¶39

hand, if it is found that no encroachment has been carried out by the petitioners, they can be dispossessed only by recourse to a procedure established by law.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶42

DSV/6.8.21

¶43

WP(C) NO. 4435 OF 2021

¶44

¶45

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4435/2021

¶46

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶47

EXHIBIT	P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 19.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE IN FAVOUR OF THE 1ST PETITIONER
EXHIBIT	P2 (A) TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, AKALAKUNNAM VILLAGE IN FAVOUR OF THE 2ND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 6.1.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 17.1.2018 IN WPC NO 1737 OF 2018.
EXHIBIT	P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 1.4.2019 IN WPC NO 1737 OF 2018.
EXHIBIT	P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS ON 24.4.2019 WHILE PRODUCING THE DOCUMENTS REFERRED THEREIN
EXHIBIT	P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO F1(2)- 15705/17 DATED 5.2.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT	P8 TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.940/2014 OF S.R.O KOZHUVANAL DATED 16/12/2014.
EXHIBIT	P9 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SETTLEMENT REGISTER PERTAINS TO THE PROPERETY OF THE PETITIONERS OBTAINED
	UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005

¶48

¶49

WP(C) NO. 4435 OF 2021

¶50

FROM THE CENTRAL ARCHIVES ON 23/2/2021.

¶51

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.33/2005 DATED 11.04.2005 OF SRO KOZHUVANAL.

¶52

RESPONDENT(S) ANNEXURES:

¶53

ANNEXURE R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F1(2)-15705/17 DATED 17.04.2019.

¶54

ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A2.2094/2017 DATED 23.11.2017 OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS. ANNEXURE R1(b) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR DATED 09.04.2019. ANNEXURE R1(c) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.F1(2)-15705/17 DATED 13.01.2021. ANNEXURE R1(d) TRUE COPY OF THE RESURVEY PLAN. ANNEXURE R5(a) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 01.07.2020 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF TAX IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE OF THE FIRST IMPLEADING PETITIONER. ANNEXURE R5(b) TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.04.2018 SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF TAX IN THE NAME OF THE 2ND IMPLEADING PETITIONER.

Nandakumar, v. the Tahasildar (L.R.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandakumar, v. the Tahasildar (L.R.)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajan Vs the Tahsildar, Mannarkkad

Shri. K.P. Lakshmanan Vs the State of Kerala

Savithri Vs the Deputy Collector

Joseph Scaria Vs the District Collector,Idukki

Dr.Sandra Sunny, Vs Director General of Police Kerala

N.Madhava Panicker Vs State of Kerala