Partly allowed

Satish Murthi v. the Secretary, Kalamassery Municipality

Kerala HC28 Nov 2022WP(C)/36466/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought removal of encroachment on state highway fronting his property. Court dismissed petition against Municipality but directed Executive Engineer, PWD to consider representation to remove encroachment.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Executive Engineer, PWD, to consider representation for removal of encroachment and pass appropriate orders within two months.

Satish Murthi Vs the Secretary, Kalamassery Municipality — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 36466 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SATISH MURTHI AGED 59 YEARS SON OF K.V. NARAYANMURTI, RESIDING AT 2ND FLOOR, BETA PLAZA, DR. KRISHNASWAMY ROAD, COCHIN – 682 035.

¶8

BY ADVS. K.LATHA M.UMA DEVI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE SECRETARY, KALAMASSERY MUNICIPALITY BPO, CHANGAMPUZHA NAGAR, THIRUNILATH HOUSING COLONY, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KERALA – 682 033.

¶11

2 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS DIVISION, 28R8+26X, PWD BUILDING COMPLEX, PATHADIPALAM, KALAMASSERY – 682 033.

¶12

3 THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAMASSERRY, 3RD FLOOR, MANATH TOWER, TOG RD, OPP. SOUTH KALAMASSERY, KOCHI, KERALA – 682 033.

¶13

4 ASEES C.E, CHALAYIL (H), NOCHIMAKKARA, N.A.D. (P. O), ALUVA – 683 563.

¶14

*** ADDL.** THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, R5 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ROADS DIVISION, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

*** IS SOU MOTU IMPLEADED AS THE ADDL.5TH RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT PETITION.**

¶16

WP(C).No.36466 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

BY ADVS. SRI. M.K ABOOBACKER - SC SRI. SYAMANTHAK - GP

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

WP(C).No.36466 OF 2022

¶21

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner in possession of 25 cents of land alongside the State Highway situated within the jurisdiction of Kalamassery Municipality. According to the petitioner, the 4^th respondent has encroached on the road side puramboke abutting the petitioner's property and put up a temporary shed for selling fish obstructing access to his property. The petitioner states that he is proposing to construct a house in the said property and the shed put up by the 4^th respondent would obstruct the ingress and egress to the property and that he has the right of access to the State Highway at all points at which his land actually touches it.

¶24

When the writ petition came up for consideration on 18.11.2022, it was submitted on

¶25

WP(C).No.36466 OF 2022

¶26

¶27

behalf of the Municipality that, the road in front of the petitioner's property is not vested in the Municipality; but it is a road maintained by the Public Works Department (for short, 'PWD'). Accordingly, the petitioner has filed Ext.P5 representation before the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Roads Di vision, Ernakulam requesting to take steps to remove the encroachment.

¶28

3 . Though notice was issued to the 4^th

¶29

respondent by special messenger, the notice returned with the endorsement “notice returned without receiving” by the 4^th respondent.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality and the learned Government Pleader.

¶31

Since it is submitted that the road in front of the petitioner's property is maintained by the PWD, I feel it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition

¶32

WP(C).No.36466 OF 2022

¶33

¶34

with a direction to the Executive Engineer, Public

¶35

Works Department, Roads Division, Ernakulam to consider Ext.P5 representation of the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders thereon within a time frame. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Roads Division, Ernakulam is suo motu impleaded as the additional 5 th respondent in the writ petition.

¶36

There will be a direction to the additional 5^th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5, with notice to the petitioner and the 4^th respondent within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶37

The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶40

SPR

¶41

WP(C).No.36466 OF 2022

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶45

EXHIBIT	P1 (a) TRUE	COPY OF	SALE	DEED NO.4474 OF 1981.
EXHIBIT	P1 (b) TRUE	COPY OF	THE	SKETCH OF THE PLOT.
EXHIBIT	P2 TRUE UNAU	COPY THORISED	OF ENCR	PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE OACHMENT.
EXHIBIT	P3 TRUE	COPY	OF	THE COMPLAINT DATED
	29/0 RESP	9/2022 S ONDENT.	UBMI	TTED BEFORE THE 3RD
EXHIBIT	P3(a) TRUE 3RD	COPY OF RESPONDEN	THE T.	RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
EXHIBIT	P4 TRUE	COPY OF	THE	REPRESENTATION DATED
	12/1 RESP	0/2022 S ONDENT.	UBMI	TTED BEFORE THE 1ST
EXHIBIT	P4(a) TRUE 1ST	COPY OF RESPONDEN	THE T.	RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE
EXHIBIT	P5 AND TRUE	COPIES	OF TH	E REPRESENTATION DATED
P5(a)	24TH 2ND	NOVEMBER RESPONDEN	202 T AN	2 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE D THE RECEIPT ISSUED.

¶46

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL.

Satish Murthi v. the Secretary, Kalamassery Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Murthi v. the Secretary, Kalamassery Municipality

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

Nishad Azeem Vs State of Kerala

Haseeb Haneef Vs the Sub Collector

Sindhu Vs the State of Kerala

Dominic Antony Vs Eloor Municipality

Ummer Bava E, Vs the Trikkalangode Grama Panchayath

M/S. Aiswarya Granites Vs Elamadu Grama Panchayat