Disposed

Praseeda Venu v. Cochin Corporation Zonal Office

Kerala HC3 Nov 2022WP(C)/6603/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner alleged encroachment and unauthorized construction by the 3rd respondent. The High Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider the petitioner's complaint and take appropriate action after hearing all concerned parties. The court explicitly stated it made no pronouncement on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to consider Ext.P1 representation and take appropriate action after hearing the petitioner and the 3rd respondent.

Praseeda Venu Vs Cochin Corporation Zonal Office — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 12TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 6603 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

PRASEEDA VENU AGED 53 YEARS W/O LATE VENU M G, MADAKKAVIL HOUSE, INCHAMUDY P O, THRISSUR, PIN-680564, KERALA.

¶8

BY ADVS. E.ADITHYAN MEERA RAMESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 COCHIN CORPORATION ZONAL OFFICE EDAPPALLY SONNIA NAGAR, EDAPPALLY, KOCHI, KERALA-682024, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER FIRST FLOOR, KB JACOB ROAD, FORT KOCHI, KOCHI, KERALA-682001.

¶12

3 THRESYAMA JOSEPH RESIDING AT CHETTIPARAMBIL BUILDING, DOOR NO.41/1500, CIVIL LINE ROAD, PADIVATTOM, KOCHI-682025.

¶13

BY ADV P.Y.SHEHEERA FOR R1

¶14

SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C) NO.6603 OF 2022

¶17

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

Dated this the 3^rd day of November, 2022

¶20

The petitioner is owner in absolute possession of a commercial complex named Venus Arcade in Edappally South Village, Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam District.

¶21

The petitioner states that the commercial building is a three storied building. There is a canal on the southern side of the boundary of the property. According to the petitioner, one Mr.Thresyama Joseph residing at Chettiparambil Building in Civil Line Road, Padivattom, who is having possession of a portion of property right in the southern boundary of the petitioner has encroached and an attempt is made for unauthorised construction on the encroached property.

¶22

The petitioner states that the encroachment made by

¶23

the said Thresyama Joseph is clearly illegal, the construction being made in violation of all Building Rules and Regulations.

¶24

WP(C) NO.6603 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

The petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P1 complaint before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Unless the Revenue Divisional Officer makes necessary enquiry and takes appropriate action, the petitioner will be put to untold hardship.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel representing the 1^st respondent and the learned Government Pleader representing the 2^nd respondent. In view of the nature of the relief to be granted

¶28

in this writ petition, notice to the 3^rd respondent is dispensed with.

¶29

The specific grievance of the petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent who is in possession of a part of the property on the southern boundary of the petitioner has encroached and an attempt is made for unauthorised construction on the encroached property. Taking into consideration the nature of

¶30

the allegations made by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the 2^nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer can consider the grievance raised by the petitioner in Ext.P4 in accordance

¶31

WP(C) NO.6603 OF 2022

¶32

¶33

with law in compliance of the principles of Natural Justice.

¶34

In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent-Revenue Divisional Officer to consider Ext.P1 representation submitted by the petitioner and take appropriate action thereon as is deemed warranted, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the 3^rd respondent. It is made clear that this Court has not pronounced anything on merits on the allegations made by the petitioner.

¶35

N. NAGARESH

¶36

sss

¶37

WP(C) NO.6603 OF 2022

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6603/2022

¶40

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶41

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FORWARDED TO RDO. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 19.02.2019. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 14782/2019. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FORWARDED TO COCHIN CORPORATION. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30.09.2021.

Praseeda Venu v. Cochin Corporation Zonal Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praseeda Venu v. Cochin Corporation Zonal Office

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

V.G.Jose Vs State of Kerala

V.G.Jose Vs State of Kerala

Tomy C Vadayil Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Sunitha Kumari C. S., Vs State of Kerala

Abdurahiman K Vs State of Kerala

M.a.Kareem Vs the Vayalar Gramapanchayat, Represented by Its Secretary