Disposed

Muraleedharan Pillai v. Land Revenue Commissioner

Kerala HC8 Feb 2022WP(C)/2721/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition directing the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation filed regarding the alleged encroachment of public property by a proposed fuel station while finalizing the NOC application under Rule 144.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 3rd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation (Exts.P3 and P4) while reconsidering the NOC application.

Muraleedharan Pillai Vs Land Revenue Commissioner — Company and Corporate | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 / 19TH MAGHA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2721 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI AGED 75 YEARS S/O. KUTTAN PILLAI, MURALI BHAVANAM, MUTHUPILAKKADU EAST, PORUVAZHI P.O., SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT-690520.

¶8

BY ADVS. K.SIJU S.ABHILASH ANJANA KANNATH T.S.SREEKUTTY

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM ROAD, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.

¶11

2 DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691013.

¶12

3 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM-691013.

¶13

4 TAHSILDAR, KUNNATHOOR TALUK, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM-690520.

¶14

5 VILLAGE OFFICER, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM-690520.

¶15

WP(C) NO. 2721 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

6 VILLAGE OFFICER, PORUVAZHI VILLAGE, KOLLAM-690520.

¶18

7 CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, TATAPURAM, ERNAKULAM NORTH P.O., KOCHI-682018.

¶19

8 SASTHAMCOTTA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SASTHAMCOTTA, KOLLAM-690521, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶20

9 NIKHIL S., S/O. SUDHAKARAN PILLAI, NEERANJANAM, KULANGARA LANE, KONNAMANKARA, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA691523 FROM AMBIKALAYAM HOUSE, MUTHUPILAKKADU EAST, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM-690520.

¶21

10 SUDHAKARAN PILLAI,

¶22

S/O. SIVARAMA PILLAI, NEERANJANAM, KULANGARA LANE, KONNAMANKARA, ADOOR P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA691523 FROM AMBIKALAYAM HOUSE, MUTHUPILAKKADU EAST, SASTHAMCOTTA VILLAGE, KOLLAM-690520.

¶23

BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI JOSON MANAVALAN KURYAN THOMAS PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM RAJA KANNAN SRI.APPU P S, GP

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.02.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C) NO. 2721 OF 2022

¶26

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Dated this the 8^th day of February, 2022

¶29

The petitioner who is a resident of Sasthamcotta Village has approached this Court seeking to direct the 3^rd respondent to consider and dispose of Exts.P3 and P4 representations submitted by the petitioner before passing fresh orders in the application for NOC submitted by the 9^th respondent to establish a Fuel Station in Poruvazhi Village of Kunnathoor Taluk.

¶30

The petitioner states that 9^th respondent intends to start a Fuel Station in Sasthamcotta Poruvazhi Village, Kunnathoor Taluk in Kollam District. According to the petitioner, the 9^th respondent proposed to establish the Fuel Station encroaching public property. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 representation before the 3^rd respondent in this regard.

¶31

WP(C) NO. 2721 OF 2022

¶32

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶34

9^th respondent had already approached this Court filing WP(C) No.23431/2021 and this Court has already directed the 3^rd respondent to reconsider the application for NOC filed by the 9^th respondent under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, if the 9^th respondent produced a Development Permit. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the 3^rd respondent consider the application solely based on the Development Permit and without examining whether the Fuel Station is proposed on a puramboke land, the petitioner and other general public will be put to loss. Therefore, the 3^rd respondent may be directed to hear the petitioner herein also while finalizing the proceedings for issuance of NOC to the 9^th respondent.

¶35

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader representing the respondents.

¶36

¶37

WP(C) NO. 2721 OF 2022

¶38

According to the petitioner, the 9^th respondent's

¶39

proposed Fuel Station comes on public property/puramboke. If a petroleum outlet is permitted on puramboke without any license or sanction of the Government, that will be a gross illegality. Therefore, the grievance raised by the petitioner should be considered. This Court finds that whether the allegation made by the petitioner is true is a matter which should necessarily be examined by the 3^rd respondent.

¶40

In the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3^rd respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation filed by the petitioner also while reconsidering the application for NOC pursuant to Ext.P7 judgment of this Court, if the proceedings are not already concluded.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH

JUDGE

spk

WP(C) NO. 2721 OF 2022

¶46

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2721/2022

¶48

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶49

Exhibit P1	THE COPY OF COMMON JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE SUBORDINATE JUDGES COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY IN A.S.NO.20/2014 AND 21/2014 DATED 6.12.2017.
Exhibit P2	THE COPY OF PLAINT IN OS.NO.32/2019 ON THE FILE OF MUNSIFF COURT, SASTHAMCOTTA.
Exhibit P3	THE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 23.2.2021.
Exhibit P4	THE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 19.4.2021 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5	THE COPY OF REPORT DATED 6.5.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P6	THE COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 20.9.2021 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR NOC UNDER RULE 144 OF THE PETROLEUM RULES, 2002.
Exhibit P7	THE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP(C) NO.23431/2021.

¶50

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS :NIL

Muraleedharan Pillai v. Land Revenue Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muraleedharan Pillai v. Land Revenue Commissioner

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

Gopinathan Pillai Vs a K Sini

Shivendu R.Sekhar Vs the State of Kerala

Muhammed Iiyas T.S Vs State of Kerala

Kripa Charitable Society Vs District Social Justice Officer

Sherly Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited (Ksfe)

Alex Rockey Vs Chief Executive Officer (Ceo)