Allowed

Radhakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Sept 2023WP(C)/6809/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging an illegal eviction notice (Ext.P8) issued following a survey allegedly conducted in violation of earlier court directions (Ext.P7). The Court set aside the notice and directed a fresh survey with the petitioners' attendance.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; Ext.P8 eviction notice set aside; direction to mark appearance for fresh survey on 26.09.2023.

Radhakrishna Pillai Vs State of Kerala — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 20TH BHADRA, 1945

¶5

WP(C) NO. 6809 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶8

AGED 59 YEARS, S/O LATE RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, PULLAMPALLIL-KRISHNAHARI, KUNNATHUR EAST P O, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, SASTHAMACOTTA, KOLLAM-690540.

¶9

2 VASANTHI AMMA AGED 78 YEARS, W/O LATE RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, PULLAMPALLIL, KUNNATHUR EAST P O, KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, SASTHAMACOTTA, KOLLAM-690540. BY ADV. B.MOHANLAL

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA

¶12

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶13

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CUTCHERY P O, KOLLAM-691019.

¶14

3 THE TAHSILDAR,

¶15

TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUR P O, KOLLAM-690519.

¶16

4 THE VILLAGE OFFICER

¶17

KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, KUNNATHUR P O, KOLLAM-690519.

¶18

5 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, KERALA ROAD, FRONT BOARD, SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLE FOR IMPLEMENTING KIFBI FUND PROJECT, 3RD FLOOR, SUNRISE AVENUE, KADAPPAKKADA P O, KOLLAM-691008.

¶19

6 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KARUNAGAPPALLY P O, KOLLAM-690518.

¶20

7 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SASTHAMCOTTAH, SASTHAMCOTTAH P O, KOLLAM-690520.

¶21

8 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,KOTTARAKKARA, KOTTARAKKARA P O, KOLLAM-691546. BY ADV.

¶22

SRI.K.V.MANOJ KUMAR, SENIOR G.P.

¶23

W.P.(C).No. 6809 of 2022

¶24

: 2 :

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

W.P.(C).No. 6809 of 2022

¶27

: 3 :

¶28

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J. ========================= W.P.(C).No. 6809 of 2022

¶29

========================== Dated this the 11^th day of September, 2023

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The specific imputation of the petitioners is that the directions in Ext.P7 judgment of this Court have been flagrantly violated by the respondents and that a unilateral survey has been conducted behind their back; thus to find them guilty of encroachment, leading to notices being issued for eviction.

¶32

Smt.Preetha P.S. – learned counsel for the petitioners, vehemently argued that, even though this Court had, in Ext.P7 judgment, clearly stipulated the modus to be followed by the respondents in completing the survey – including after serving notice to them, it was conveniently circumvented, by issuing a notice of hearing on a particular date, but with the Authority keeping away on account of stated Court duty and such other reasons. She argued that hence the survey now conducted by the respondents is non est in law ; and, therefore, that Ext.P8 notice of eviction issued against them is illegal and unlawful.

¶33

Sri.K.V.Manojkumar – learned Senior Government Pleader, on behalf of the respondents, however, submitted that

¶34

W.P.(C).No. 6809 of 2022

¶35

: 4 :

¶36

even though several attempts were made to serve notice on the petitioners, including through affixture, they refused to appear for the survey proceedings, and, therefore, that the Authorities had no other option but to complete the survey and issue Ext.P8. He, however, fairly conceded that, if the petitioners are so interested, another opportunity of hearing and production of documents can be afforded to the petitioners, leading to fresh survey, so that the matter can then obtain a quietus in terms of Ext.P7 judgment.

¶37

When I hear the learned Senior Government Pleader as afore, it is obvious that this Court do not need to enter into the merits of the controversy projected by the petitioners, because it would also be to their interest if the afore suggestion is accepted.

¶38

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P8; with a consequential direction to the petitioners to mark appearance before the 3^rd respondent at 11. a.m., on 26.09.2023, with all their documents, based on which a survey will be conducted in terms of Ext.P7 judgment, leading it to be completed without any delay.

¶39

On the survey being so completed, a copy of the report of

¶40

W.P.(C).No. 6809 of 2022

¶41

: 5 :

¶42

the same shall be served on the petitioners, and they will further be heard with respect to any alleged encroachment, thus leading to appropriate further action to be initiated and pursued in terms of law thereafter.

¶43

Sd/DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶44

anm

¶45

W.P.(C).No. 6809 of 2022

¶46

: 6 :

¶47

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6809/2022

¶48

PETITIO Exhibit	NER EXHIB P1	ITS THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 26/06/2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD 2020- 2021.
Exhibit	P1(a)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 01/07/2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD 2020-2021 IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY.
Exhibit	P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 14.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, KUNNATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE 1ST PETITIONER FOR THE PERIOD 2020-2021.
Exhibit	P2(a)	THE TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.01.2021 ISSUED BY KUNNATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH TO THE 2ND PETITIONER IN THE NAME OF HER HUSBAND SR.BHASKARAN PILLAI.
Exhibit	P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 11.06.2018 ISSUED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, S.B.T.KOTTARAKKARA TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
Exhibit	P4	THE TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BUILDING OF THE PETITIONER HAVING ACCESS TO THE PWD ROAD, KOTTARAKKARA-BHARANIKAVU- SASTHAMCOTTAH.
Exhibit	P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 13.02.2021 FILED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE MINISTER FOR PWD, AND THE RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 AND ITS POSTAL RECEIPTS.
Exhibit	P6	THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 22.02.2021 IN WPC NO.4300/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit	P7	THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.07.2021 IN WPC NO.4300/2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Exhibit	P8	THE TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.KRFB- PMU/KLM/EE-2021 DATED 24.02.2022 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS.

Radhakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhakrishna Pillai 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

Konuparamban Traders Vs the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

M/S. Panos Apparel Industries Vs State Bank of India

Jayesh Vs K.N. Prakashan

A. Gopalan Nair, Vs the Union of India

Deepak S.V Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Anandan Vs the District Collector