Dismissed

Annamma Thomas v. the State of Kerala Represented by the District Collector

Kerala HC13 Mar 2024RP/344/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a review petition challenging a direction to expedite the recovery of government land encroached by the petitioner. The Court found the petition meritless, noting the land was for a public road and the petitioner had stalling recovery via multiple litigations, and directed compliance with the possession order.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed with cost; 3rd respondent directed to complete possession process within 7 days.

Annamma Thomas Vs the State of Kerala Represented by the… — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 23RD PHALGUNA, 1945

¶5

RP NO.344 OF 2024

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.11.2023 IN RSA NO.394 OF 2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

¶8

ANNAMMA THOMAS
AGED 85 YEARS

¶9

CHARUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, PARAMPUZHA P.O., MOSCO KAVALA,
KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686032

¶10

BY ADV P.T.MOHANKUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS & 3RD PARTY:

¶12

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001

¶13

2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROADS SUB DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001

¶14

3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ROADS SUB DIVISION, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001

¶15

4 P.K.PADMAVALLIYAMMA AGED 73 YEARS W/O.RAJAPPAN NAIR, SREE NILAYAM, VADAVATHOOR KARA, VIJAYAPURAM VILLAGE, VIJAYAYAPURAM P.O., KOTTAYAM, PIN – 686009

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.DENNY DEVASSY

¶17

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.03.2024,
THE COURT ON 13.3.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

RP NO. 344 OF 2024
IN RSA NO.394 OF 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Dated this the 13^th day of March, 2024

¶21

This review petition is at the instance of the appellant in R.S.A.No.394/2023, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.244/2017 on the files of the Additional Munsiff Court, Kottayam and in A.S.No.155/2019 on the files of the Additional District Court – I, Kottayam.

¶22

As per judgment, dated 21.11.2023, this Court dismissed the second appeal, after addressing the grievance addressed, including substantial questions of law. This Court found against the plea of adverse possession raised by the review petitioner, while confirming the said finding entered into by the trial court as well as the appellate court. Thereafter, this Court directed the 3^rd defendant to expedite the proceedings to get vacant possession of the Government land without fail, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶23

RP NO. 344 OF 2024

¶24

IN RSA NO.394 OF 2023

¶25

¶26

Now, this review petition has been filed to expunge the direction issued by this Court to expedite the proceedings to get vacant possession of the Government land .

¶27

According to the learned counsel for the review petitioner, now, the review petitioner filed an application for getting assignment of 0.932 cent of land found to be unauthorisedly occupied by the review petitioner, before the Revenue Divisional Officer.

¶28

The learned Government Pleader strongly opposed review of the judgment. It is submitted that, the review petitioner challenged the judgment in R.S.A.No.394/2023 before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the S.L.P. was dismissed. It is also submitted by the learned Government Pleader, on instructions from the officials that 0.932 cent of property, found to be unauthorisedly occupied by the review petitioner ordered to be recovered by this Court by giving specific direction to the 3^rd defendant, is part of public road and as early on 17.3.2017, Ext.A3 notice was issued to get the same

¶29

RP NO. 344 OF 2024

¶30

IN RSA NO.394 OF 2023

¶31

¶32

vacated. Thereafter, the review petitioner filed writ petition and at the verge of dispossession, she filed the present petition and claimed adverse possession. The learned Government Pleader also submitted, on instructions, that the Government has no intention to assign 0.932 cent of land to the review petitioner, since the same is part of public road.

¶33

It is discernible from the review petition that S.L.P. (Civil) No.3926/2024, filed by the review petitioner before the Hon’ble Apex Court, was dismissed on 20.2.2024 and it was thereafter, the present review petition was filed. It is also noticed that the review petitioner also filed W.P. (C).No.8241/2024 for the said relief and the same also was dismissed by this Court. Apart from W.P.(C).No.8241/2024, the review petitioner filed two other writ petitions, viz., W.P. (C).No.44317/2023 and W.P.(C).No.5799/2024. W.P. (C).No.5799/2024 was dismissed as withdrawn and W.P. (C).No.44317/2023 was disposed of, granting one month time and the said period already expired.

¶34

RP NO. 344 OF 2024
IN RSA NO.394 OF 2023

¶35

On perusing the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No.3926/2024, the same was dismissed as under:

¶36

“We are not inclined to interfere with the judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.”

¶37

Overall evaluation of the materials, it is discernible that the review petitioner, who encroached upon the Government property, acquired for the purpose of road, has been stalling vacant possession of the same by the Government, by filing litigations one after another. Since it is categorically submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the Government has no intention to assign 0.932 cent of property, found to be unauthorisedly occupied by the review petitioner, there is no reason to interfere with the direction issued by this Court, after referring the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court to get back Government land, encroached upon by the review petitioner.

¶38

Therefore, this review petition is found to be

¶39

RP NO. 344 OF 2024
IN RSA NO.394 OF 2023

¶40

¶41

meritless and the same is dismissed with cost of the State Government to be realised from the review petitioner.

¶42

The 3^rd respondent is directed to complete the

¶43

process of vacant possession of 0.932 cent of property, within a period of seven days and file compliance report on 21.3.2024.

¶44

The learned Government Pleader is directed to communicate this order to the 3^rd respondent, forthwith, for compliance and filing report.

¶45

Sd/- A. BADHARUDEEN JUDGE

¶46

Annamma Thomas v. the State of Kerala Represented by the District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annamma Thomas v. the State of Kerala Represented by the District Collector

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

Ocean Polymers Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

Mary Santha Stephen Vs General Manager, State Bank of India

Sajeena Vs the Kollam District Co-Operative Bank