Disposed

Jalal Das v. the District Collector

Kerala HC22 Nov 2022WP(C)/18407/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged unauthorized bridge/slab erection over a canal by respondents 3 and 4. Court held departmental proceedings were initiated and dismissed the writ, directing District Collector to consider representations with hearing within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st Respondent-District Collector to consider representations and applications from parties, give them opportunity of hearing, and take a decision within two months.

Jalal Das Vs the District Collector — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 18407 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

JALAL DAS, AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.MUKUNDA DAS, HARITHA, ARUMANOOR, POOVAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 525.

¶7

BY ADVS.
M.R.SARIN
P.SANTHOSHKUMAR (KARUMKULAM)
AJI S.
MAHALEKSHMY P.S

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

¶10

2ND FLOOR CIVIL STATION BUILDING, CIVIL STATION ROAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 043.

¶11

2 ASSISTANT ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, PARASALA, TRIVANDRUM - 695 502.

¶12

3 SANTHOSH KUMAR THIRUVONAM HOUSE, THOTTUVARAMBIL ARUMANOOR POOVAR P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 525.

¶13

4 MURUGHAN MURUGHAN JOTHISHALAYAJM, PATTAIKALA ARUMANOOR POOVAR P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 525.

¶14

5 THE POOVAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POOVAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 525.

¶15

6 THE SECRETARY THE POOVAR GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, POOVAR P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 525.

¶16

BY ADVS.
R.GOPAN
Arun VG
V.JAYA RAGI(K/3390/1999)
R.HARIKRISHNAN (KAMBISSERIL)(K/993/2012)
NEERAJ NARAYAN(K/332/2016)
AVANEETH S.R.(K/306/2021)
SRI.M.R.SASITH (SC)- R5 7 R6
SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE GP

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO.18407 OF 2022

¶19

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2022

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the action of respondents 3 and 4 in erecting a slab/bridge over the canal for ingress to the property of respondents 3 and 4.

¶23

The petitioner would submit that the laying of slab/construction of bridge is illegal and unauthorised and has been made without obtaining approval from any of the competent authorities. Construction of such slab is causing undue hardship to the petitioner and causing blockage of water and waterlogging issues in the property of the petitioner. The Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Parassala has already issued Ext.P4 notice directing to restore the canal to its old position, by removing the illegal construction of the bridge.

¶24

WP(C) NO.18407 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 and 2, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 5 and 6 and the respective learned counsel appearing for respondents 3 and 4.

¶27

From the pleadings in the writ petition, it is seen that the petitioner preferred Ext.P5 representation before the District Collector against construction of illegal bridge/illegal laying of slab over the canal. As proceedings have already been initiated as per Ext.P4, it would be only just and proper that the District Collector takes a decision in the matter.

¶28

Counsel for the 3^rd respondent submits that the 3^rd respondent has submitted Ext.R3(g) application before the District Collector seeking regularisation of construction of slabs. Counsel for the 4^th respondent submits that he has also filed an application for regularisation before the District Collector.

¶29

WP(C) NO.18407 OF 2022

¶30

¶31

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent-District Collector,

¶32

Thiruvananthapuram to consider and take a decision on Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner and applications submitted by respondents 3 and 4, within a period of two months, after giving an opportunity of hearing to them.

sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

hmh

WP(C) NO.18407 OF 2022

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18407/2022

¶40

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶41

Exhibit P1THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER OF
THE STATE PUBLIC SERVICE OFFICER TO THE
PETITIONER DATED ON 23/10/2021.
Exhibit P2THE TRUE COPY OF REPLY LETTER OF THE
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, MINOR
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT TO THE PETITIONER
DATED ON 26/11/2021.
Exhibit P3THE TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION LETTER
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT ON 4/12/2022.
Exhibit P4THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE ARUN VISHNU
DATED ON 8/4/2022.
Exhibit P5THE TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION LETTER
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT ON 26/5/2022.
RESPONDENT’S EXHIBITS NIL
Exhibit R3(A)THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT
DATED 18.05.2022 OF POOVAR VILLAGE
EXHIBIT R3(B)THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH
PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R3©THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED
08.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R3(D)THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
07.10.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SHO POOVAR
EXHIBIT R3(E)THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE DATED
25.06.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R3(F)THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE APPEAL DATED
29.06.2022 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
BEFORETHEASSISTANTEXECUTIVE
ENGINEER,IRRIGATIONDEPARTMENT,
NAYYATTINKARA

¶42

WP(C) NO.18407 OF 2022

¶43

¶44

EXHIBIT R3(G)THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED
25.05.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT R3(H)THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE CANNAL AND SLAB

Jalal Das v. the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jalal Das v. the District Collector

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

Sebin K. S. Vs the State of Kerala

Najeena Asharaf Vs Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Limited

The Principal Secretary to Government Vs the Chairman and Managing Trustee

Michael Meenattoor Vs the State of Kerala

R Sumathi Vs Thiruvananthapuram Corporation

Thamban K.P Vs the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority