Disposed

Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam Branch NO.771 v. M.R.Sasi Kumar

Kerala HC13 Dec 2022WA/1637/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ appeal challenging eviction instructions. Finding that a notice under the Land Conservancy Act had been issued to the respondent, the Court directed the Assistant Executive Engineer to await the appellant's reply and pass orders within one month, specifically considering objections raised regarding procedural violations under the Survey and Boundaries Act.

What did the court decide?

Direct the Assistant Executive Engineer to pass orders in accordance with law within one month after receiving the appellant's reply to the notice.

Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam Branch NO.771 Vs… — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

W.A.No.1637of 2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶6

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶8

TUESDAY, THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1944 WA NO. 1637 OF 2019

¶9

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 32909/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶10

APPELLANT/6TH RESPONDENT:

¶11

SREE NARAYANA DHARMA PARIPALANA YOGAM, BRANCH NO.771 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIDANADU P.O, PIN-686 123.

¶12

BY ADV A.N.RAJAN BABU

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 M.R.SASI KUMAR MANNOOTHUNDATHIL HOUSE, THIDANADU P.O, PIN-686 123.

¶15

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶16

3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE P.O, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 001.

¶17

4 THE TAHASILDAR, MEENACHIL TALUK, THE TALUK OFFICE, PALAI, KOTTAYAM686 575.

¶18

5 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS SUB DIVISION, ARUNAPURAM, PALA, KOTTAYAM-686 575.

¶19

W.A.No.1637of 2019

¶20

¶21

6 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD ROAD SECTION (ERATTUPETTA), ERATTUPETTA P.O, KOTTAYAM-686 121

¶22

BY ADVS. SRI.V.K.PRASAD FOR R1 SRI.TEK CHAND, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 TO R6

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.No.1637of 2019

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2022

¶28

S.MANIKUMAR, CJ.

¶29

Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.3.2019 in W.P.(C) No.32909 of 2018, instant writ appeal has been filed.

¶30

Short facts leading to the filing of the writ appeal are as follows:

¶31

2.1 The appellant herein is the 6^th respondent in W.P.(C) No. 32909/2018. Writ petition was filed by one M.R.Sasikumar – 1^st respondent, seeking for directions to the District Collector, Kottayam – the 3^rd respondent therein, to recover puramboke land, referred to in Exhibit P4 and P4(a), to the extent of 82 sq.m, alleged to be encroached by the Assistant Engineer, PWD Road Section, Erattupetta, Kottayam – the 6^th respondent.

¶32

2.2 According to the appellant, the said writ petition was filed on 8-102018. When the matter came up before the concerned Bench, on 26-03-2019, the appellant herein sought time for filing counter affidavit. It was not granted and the writ petition was disposed of, directing the District Collector, Kottayam – the 3^rd respondent therein, to evict the encroachment after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

¶33

2.3 It is the case of the appellant that there is no encroachment, as

¶34

alleged, and that the entire institution and its constructions are within 40 cents

¶35

W.A.No.1637of 2019

¶36

¶37

of registered holdings obtained by 4 registered sale deeds. Exhibit P4 (a) sketch is not prepared by the Taluk surveyor with notice to the appellant and it is in violation of Section 10 of Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961.

¶38

2.4 According to the appellant, he came to know about Exhibits P4 and P4(a), only when a copy of the writ petition was served on him. Thereupon, Annexure-A appeal was filed before the 3^rd respondent, which is still pending. It is also submitted that the appellant's representatives appeared before the 3^rd respondent on 10-05-2019 and produced a copy of the petition dated 1012-2018, copies of sale deeds and other documents, and sought time to produce more evidence. But, the 3^rd respondent refused to accept the representation and the objections/argument notes.

¶39

2.5 According to the appellant, it is a patent violation of the directions made in the judgment dated 26.3.2019. The Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Sub Division, Arunapuram, Pala, Kottayam – the 5^th respondent, took steps to evict the appellant, without hearing objections when Annexure A - appeal/petition dated 10.12.2018 submitted before the 3^rd respondent was pending. Hence, the appellant filed W.P.(C) No. 13776/2019 seeking to direct the 4^th respondent therein viz., the Assistant Engineer, PWD Rods Section, Kottayam, to accept objections, consider it and pass appropriate orders on the same before evicting the alleged encroachment.

¶40

W.A.No.1637of 2019

¶41

¶42

2.6 It is submitted that the said writ petition was heard on 14-05-2019 with directions to the 5^th respondent viz., the Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Roads Sub Division, Kottayam, to consider the objection filed by the appellant and to pass appropriate orders and, in the meanwhile, not to take steps to evict the encroachment. According to the appellant, Exhibits P4 and P4(a) sketches were prepared in violation of Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 and hence, not valid. The appellant is highly aggrieved by the directions made in the impugned judgment. Hence, the writ appeal is filed.

¶43

Operative portion of the impugned judgment dated 26.3.2019 is reproduced hereunder:

¶44

"As seen from Ext.P4, there is an encroachment over the land. This Ext.P4 was issued by the Tahsildar to the Assistant WP(C).No. 32909 of 2018 4 Engineer of PWD (Roads). In such circumstances, the Assistant Engineer of PWD or any other competent officials among the respondents shall take necessary steps to remove the encroachment in accordance with the Land Conservancy Act, 1957 after issuing notices to the encroachers. The entire proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act, 1957 shall be completed within a period of three months. It is made clear that only after issuing notice and passing final orders, the encroachment need to be removed.

¶45

The writ petition is disposed of as above. "

¶46

In continuation of the order dated 5^th December, 2022, on

¶47

instructions, Mr.Tek Chand – learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted

¶48

W.A.No.1637of 2019

¶49

¶50

that the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Sub Division, Arunapuram, Kottayam – the 5^th respondent herein, has issued a notice under the Land Conservancy Act, 1957.

¶51

According to Mr.A.N.Rajan Babu - learned counsel for appellant, the said notice has not been responded so far, however, he agrees for a logical conclusion of the notice issued under the above said Act. He further submitted that he would give a reply to the notice, within a week's time.

¶52

Submission of learned counsel for the appellant, is placed on record.

¶53

On receipt of reply, from the appellant, the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Sub Division, Arunapuram, Kottayam – the 5^th respondent, is directed to pass orders, in accordance with law, within a period of one month thereafter.

¶54

With the above directions, the writ appeal is disposed of.

¶55

Sd/- S.MANIKUMAR, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶56

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

smv

W.A.No.1637of 2019

PENDIX OF WA 1637/2019

¶61

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶62

ANNEXURE A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL/PETITION DATED 10.12.2018 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT WITH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE B COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 14.05.2019 IN W.P.(C) NO. 13776/2019.

Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam Branch NO.771 v. M.R.Sasi Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam Branch NO.771 v. M.R.Sasi Kumar

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

Maria Oommen Vs State of Kerala, Represented by Its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Local Self Government

Rkv Motors and Timbers (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs Shajahir

Union of India Vs N.K.Gopalan

Sree Narayana Dharma Seva Sangham Vs the District Collector, Collectorate, Kollam

Asharaf Vs the District Collector

Sajith Vs the District Collector, Malappuram