Dismissed

Jacob Joseph v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jul 2022WP(C)/7451/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a public interest plea, the High Court of Kerala was approached to quash construction of a shuttle court and direct bus stand development on surrendered land. The Court dismissed the petition, finding the shuttle court construction served a public purpose and did not justify invoking writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Reliefs seeking quashing of work and direction to construct bus stand were denied.

Jacob Joseph Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2022 / 14TH ASHADHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 7451 OF 2019

¶7

PETITIONERS:

¶8

JACOB JOSEPH
AGED 44 YEARS,
S/O. LATE M.A JOSEPH,
MAMALATHAZHATHU HOUSE,
RAMAMANGALAM P.O,
ERNAKULAM, KERALA-686663.

¶9

BY ADVS.
S.GOPAKUMAR
SMT.T.M.BINITHA

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695001.

¶12

2 PAMBAKKUDA BLOCK PANCHAYATH, PETTY JUNCTION, ENUEWSE HILL, NEAR ANCHEL, ANCHALPETTY, KERALA-686667, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

3 RAMAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH RAMAMANGALAM-THODUPUZHA ROAD, RAMAMANGALAM,KERALA-686663.

¶14

4 THE SECRETARY, RAMAMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RAMAMANGALAM, KERALA-686663.

¶15

W.P(C).7451/2019

¶16

¶17

5ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
LSGD SUB DIVISION,
PAMPAKUDA BLOCK,
ANCHALPETTY P.O,
ERNAKULAM-686667.
BY ADVS.
SRI. TEKCHAND SR.GOVT. PLEADER FOR R1,R2 AND R5
K.S.ARUN KUMAR
JUSTINE JACOB
RESMI THOMAS
JIBU P THOMAS, STANDING COUNSEL, R3 & R4

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 05.07.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P(C).7451/2019

¶20

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

Dated this the 5^th day of July, 2022

¶23

S. Manikumar, CJ.

¶24

This public interest writ petition is filed by the petitioner

¶25

seeking for the following reliefs:

¶26

“I. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any appropriate writ or direction directing the respondent No.2 to 5 not to proceed with the proposed work as per Exhibit P6 and quash the same.

¶27

II. Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction directing the respondent No.2 to 4 take immediate steps to remove the shuttle court put up at the land surrendered as per Exhibit P1 to P3 for construction of bus stand.

¶28

III. Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ or direction directing the respondent No.2 to 5 take immediate steps to construct the bus stand in the land surrendered as per Exhibit P1 to P3, with all the basic amenities like comfort station, water supply, electricity, sanitation facilities and allied services like parking etc., which was stalled for twenty years.”

¶29

2. The case projected by the petitioner is that petitioner and

¶30

others have relinquished 82.5 cents of land for the formation of a

¶31

W.P(C).7451/2019

¶32

¶33

bus stand within the limits of Ramamangalam Grama Panchayat-3^rd respondent in the year 1998, as evident from Exhibit P1 to P3 relinquishment applications. According to the petitioner, it was with the sole object of formation of a bus stand and considering public good, land was relinquished in favour of the Ramamangalam Grama Panchayat. That apart, it is submitted that the construction of the bus stand was started, as evident from Exhibit P4 photograph of a plaque, wherein the names of persons, who have surrendered the land are inscribed.

¶34

The grievance of the petitioner is that though the land was surrendered for construction of a bus stand, the Grama Panchayat did not take any action to construct the same with amenities like comfort station, water supply, electricity etc. But on the other hand, a major portion is occupied for the construction of a shuttle court and later the Executive Engineer (LSGD) Sub Division, Pampakkuda Block, 5^th respondent has called for an e- tender inviting quotation for construction of roof and side walls of the shuttle Court, evident from Exhibit P6. The case of the petitioner is that respondents have no power or authority to change the purpose for which land has been surrendered and

¶35

W.P(C).7451/2019

¶36

¶37

therefore, construction of the shuttle court and attempt to carry out construction of roof and side walls are illegal. Other contentions are also raised by the petitioner stating that the entire exercise undertaken by the respondents is illegal and the construction of a shuttle court has no public purpose.

¶38

A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the Ramamangalam

¶39

Grama Panchayat and the Secretary submitting as follows:

¶40

“4. It is humbly submitted that subject land proposed for the construction of bus stand was relinquished from Sri. CC Ulaahannan, Chethikatukudi House, Ramamangalam; Sri KP Elias, Kadavil House, Ramamangalam; Sri Jose Joseph, Puthanmannath House, Ramamangalam; Sri KI Lukose, Kanjeerathingal House, Ramamangalam; Smt.Eliyamma Lukose, Kanjeerathingal House, Ramamangalam; Sri AS Sathyan, Asarath House, Ramamangalam; Sri KS Baby, Kaithappillil House, Ramamangalam: in the year 1998. It is submitted that since respondent has no ample means to construct the bus stand, various funds from other Govt. agencies was utilized and tarred the area and reconstructed the tarred road.

¶41

It is respectfully submitted that under the financial assistance from BPCL Kochi, a waiting shed has constructed therein. And Panchayath with available funds is trying to get other basic amenities and facilities for the bus stand.

¶42

It is respectfully submitted that Panchayath has taken earnest steps to complete the construction of bus stand. In the meantime a shuttle court has constructed on a corner of

¶43

W.P(C).7451/2019

¶44

¶45

the subject land with the help of Kerala Sports Council. There is ample space for bus stand and the said shuttle court is constructed on a corner of the subject land. Moreover it is the mandatory sectoral wise function of the Panchayat to provide play ground for the promotion of physical and mental health of its public. The said shuttle court is constructed for the benefit of all residents of Ramamangalam Grama Panchayath as well as the people of the neighbouring localities. The Panchayat was of the opinion that the entire area developed by using exorbitant fund is not required for bus stand at present and some part of it could be converted for the constructing shuttle court. It is submitted that the shuttle court constructed in the property is not detrimental to the bus stand and it will not reduce the area of the bus stand.

¶46

It is submitted that in order to maintain the synthetic shuttle court MLA fund has been availed for the construction of roof and side walls for the shuttle court. While Pambakkuda Block Panchayath was proceeding with the development activities the petitioner herein approached Hon'ble Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha against the construction of said shuttle court Vide order dated 14/08/2018 in LA No. 3638/2017 in OS No. 618/2017 Hon'ble Munsiff court Muvattupuzha has dismissed the petition for injunction against the respondent Panchayath.”

¶47

5. Assistant Executive Engineer, LSGD sub Division,

¶48

Pampakuda Block, 5^th respondent has filed a statement submitting as follows:

¶49

W.P(C).7451/2019

¶50

¶51

“3. Administrative sanction was issued by the District Collector for an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs for construction of roof to the existing shuttle court. Technical sanction was issued on 11.09.2017. Certain people of the locality raised objection to the construction stating that the land was relinquished to the Panchayath for the construction of a bus stand and not a shuttle court.

¶52

The Village Officer, Ramamangalam vide letter No.237/17 dated 27.11.2017 reported that the land in which the construction is proposed was relinquished by Sri.K.S.Baby, S/o Skariya, Kaithpillil House, Kizhumuri, Ramamangalam. Sri.K.S.Baby informed that he is happy to see that a roof is being constructed in the land relinquished by him to the Panchayath. Sri.A.S.Sathyan and others filed a petition in the Honourable Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha and as on 22.01.2018, the Honourable Court issued a status quo in petition No.3638/2017 in OS No.618/2017. Since the period of contract expired, the Contractor withdrew from the work.

¶53

On 14.08.2018, the Honourable Munsiff Court dismissed the IA and the same was reported to the District Collector, Ernakulam. The District Collector issued Revised Administrative Sanction vide Order No.DCEKM 4537/2017/F4 dated 22.12.2018 for the construction of roof to the existing shuttle court. The work was tendered and agreement was executed with Saju Abraham, Puthumana, Varikkoli.P.O., Mattakkuzhy vide Agreement No.07/AEE/LSGD/PKDA/2018-19 dated 08.03.2019. The work has not started yet due to the impending election. The work is proposed to start after the Model Code of Conduct for Parliament Election.”

¶54

W.P(C).7451/2019

¶55

¶56

When the matter came up before this Court on 23.6.2022, Mr. S. Gopakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a meeting of the Grama Sabha convened on 20.6.2022, in connection with construction of a shuttle badminton court, it was decided to shift the shuttle court from the present position by allotting some other land for the recreation purposes and construction of the shuttle badminton court.

¶57

We directed the Grama Panchayat to file a statement touching upon the said aspect. Accordingly, a statement dated 4.7.2022 is filed before us, wherein it is stated that there is no decision by the Grama Sabha and the decision to construct the shuttle court was taken by the Grama Panchayat as per Agenda Item No.15 on 19.8.2017, which is produced as Annexure R4(b) along with the statement. It is also pointed out that the construction of the bus stand is being conducted stage by stage and now, the construction works of the resting centre for women is carried out in the bus stand by the District Panchayat under the Scheme “Women Resting Centre at Panchayat Bus Stand.

¶58

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. S. Gopakumar, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. V.

¶59

W.P(C).7451/2019

¶60

¶61

Tekchand for the State and Sri. Jibu P. Thomas, learned Standing Counsel for the Grama Panchayat and Secretary, respondents 3 and 4, perused the pleadings and material on record.

¶62

The sole question to be considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to get any relief as sought for in the writ petition.

¶63

The deliberations made above would make it clear that only a fraction of an area relinquished by the petitioner and others is utilised for the purpose of construction of a shuttle court and later an indoor shuttle court. It is equally important to note that even though the land was surrendered by various persons, except the petitioner, none others have come forward, attributing any illegality in the matter of utilisation of a portion of the property relinquished, for construction of shuttle court. It is an admitted fact that petitioner and others have surrendered the land in accordance with the provisions of land Relinquishment Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act 1958”) as early as on 7.12.1998. The relinquishment was accepted by the statutory authority in terms of the provisions of the Act, 1958. Matters being so, we are of the view that the petitioner is not at liberty to

¶64

W.P(C).7451/2019

¶65

¶66

stake any claim for the property relinquished by him, because on relinquishment, the property is absolutely vested with the panchayat/the Government, by virtue of the imperative provisions of the Act 1958 and the rules thereto. The relinquishment made by the parties have become final also. It may be true, that if the land is utilised by the panchayat other than for any public purpose, the petitioner may be able to raise an objection to the same as a responsible citizen to protect the public property, however not on the basis that he is entitled to do so by virtue of the relinquishment of the property. In the case on hand, a fraction of the property surrendered was utilised for construction of an indoor court by the Grama Panchayat, making use of the funds of the Member of the Legislative Assembly of the Constituency, in which the Panchayat is situated.

¶67

Totality of the circumstances would clearly show that the construction of the shuttle court was for a public purpose, thus enabling the residents within the limits of Grama Panchayat to utilise the same for a sports activity and recreation. But on the other hand, the panchayat has a case that the property relinquished by another person was utilised for the construction of

¶68

W.P(C).7451/2019

¶69

¶70

the shuttle court and he has no objection, which stands unrefuted. So also, apart from the small extent of less than 7 cents of the property utilised for the construction of the shuttle court, major portion of the property relinquished by the petitioner and others is utilised for construction of the bus stand; and it could be deduced from the records that stage by stage the developments are undertaken depending upon the funds made available by the resourceful responsible persons.

¶71

The additional statement filed by the Grama Panchayat would show that the property available for the bus stand is being developed by the Panchayat with the assistance and support of the District Panchayat also.

¶72

Taking into account the facts and circumstances discussed above, it cannot be said that the contentions advanced by the petitioner that the land relinquished is utilised for other purposes, other than public purposes, cannot be sustained legally or factually.

¶73

Considering the facts and circumstances so, we are of the clear opinion that the petitioner has not made out any case of arbitrariness or illegality justifying us to invoke the discretionary

¶74

W.P(C).7451/2019

¶75

¶76

power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Needless to say, the writ petition fails, accordingly it is dismissed.

¶77

Sd/S. Manikumar, Chief Justice

¶78

Sd/-

¶79

Shaji P. Chaly, Judge

¶80

sou.

¶81

W.P(C).7451/2019

¶82

¶83

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 7451/2019

¶84

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶85

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE LAND RELINQUISHMENT
FORM SUBMITTED BY C.C. ULAHANNAN DATED
07.12.1998.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE LAND RELINQUISHMENT
FORM SUBMITTED BY K.P. ELIAS DATED
07.12.1998
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE LAND RELINQUISHMENT
FORM SUBMITTED BY A.S.SATHYAN,
EXHIBIT P4PHOTO OF THE COMMEMORATION STONE
UNVEILED AT THE TIME INAUGURATION OF
CONSTRUCTION WORK OF BUS STAND.
EXHIBIT P5PHOTO OF THE COMMEMORATION STONE
UNVEILED AT THE TIME OF INAUGURATION
OF BUS STAND.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE E-TENDER NOTICE
ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.5 DATED
20.02.2019.

¶86

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS

¶87

EXHIBIT R4(a)TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
14/08/2018 IN IA NO 3638/2017 IN OS
NO.618/2017 OF HON'BLE MUNSIFF COURT,
MUVATTUPUZHA

Jacob Joseph v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jacob Joseph v. State of Kerala

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

Bar Council of Kerala, Vs P.Prakash

The Parent Teacher Association Vs the Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited

M.Hassankannu, Vs the Secretary, Poovar Grama Panchayat

Abdul Salim Vs Thajudeen M.H.

The Kollam District Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the Kerala Lok Ayukta

Sureshan Kotterian Vs State of Kerala