Disposed

Rasheed P.S. v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC11 Apr 2024WP(C)/192/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a PWD notice directing demolition of a building on acquired land and questioned the Assistant Executive Engineer's authority to act under the Land Conservancy Act. Since the petitioner's appeal against an earlier notice had already been dismissed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the writ petition was closed with liberty to challenge that order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed with liberty to challenge the appellate dismissal order dated 03.06.2016 in accordance with law; no relief granted on merits.

Rasheed P.S. Vs State of Kerala — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 11^TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 192 OF 2016

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RASHEED P.S. AGED 52 YEARS S/O.SAIDU, PULLAMPURATH HOUSE, KANGARAPPADY, VADACODE P.O., ERNAKULAM - 682 021. BY ADVS. SRI.T.B.HOOD SRI.AMAL KASHA SMT.M.ISHA

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶10

2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM - 682 030. 3 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI - 682 001

¶11

4 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD ROADS SUB DIVISION, THRIKKAKKARA, ERNAKULAM - 682 021.

¶12

5 ASSISTANT ENGINEER PWD ROAD SECTION, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM - 682 021.

¶13

6 ADDL.R2: P.K .SURESH S/O KRISHNANKUTTY, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, VADAKODE P.O., KANGARAPPADY – 682021.(ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT 6 ADDED AS PER ORDER DATED 03.06.2016 IN I.A.NO.4521/2016 IN THE WP(C)). BY ADVS.

¶14

SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.A.JAYASANKAR SRI.MANU GOVIND SRI.S.SABARINADH

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

W.P.(C) No.192 of 2016

¶17

¶18

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶19

--------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 192 of 2016

¶20

-----------------------------------------------------Dated this the 11^th day of April, 2024.

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶23

reliefs:

¶24

“(i) Call for the records leading to Ext.P8 notice issued by the 4 th respondent and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶25

(ii) Declare that the 4 th respondent Assistant Executive Engineer of the PWD has no authority to exercise the powers conferred on the District Collector under the Land Conservancy Act, 1957 and Ext.P8 notice issued by him is without jurisdiction and hence void.

¶26

(iii) Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass in the circumstances of the case.”[SIC]

¶27

2. When this Writ petition came up for

¶28

W.P.(C) No.192 of 2016

¶29

¶30

consideration, the learned Government Pleader takes me through paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 5. The relevant portion of the above counter affidavit is extracted hereunder:

¶31

“6. It is respectfully submitted that the 4^th respondent issued a notice dated 21.11.2014 under Section 11(2) of the Land Conservancy Act 1957, directing the petitioner to demolish the building in the acquired property within 7 days. Against this notice petitioner filed an appeal before the 3^rd respondent. After that the petitioner filed writ petition No.31859/2014 before this Hon'ble Court. And this Hon'ble Court directed the 3^rd respondent to dispose of the appeal within three weeks. In pursuant to the above Judgment the petitioners were heard on 05.02.2015 and after that the matter was posted to 27.05.2016 for further hearing. But the petitioner was not appeared on 27.05.2016. Hence the appeal was dismissed by order No.F 10010/14 dated 03.06.2016.”

¶32

From the above, it is clear that the appeal filed by the petitioner is already dismissed on

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C) No.192 of 2016

¶35

03.06.2016. Counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶36

that the finding in the order passed by the appellate authority is not correct. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is free to challenge the same in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Roads Sub Division, Thrikkakara, Ernakulam has no authority to issue an order like Ext.P8. The petitioner is free to challenge the same also while challenging the order in the appeal.

¶37

With the above observation and granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the same, if he is aggrieved, this Writ petition is closed.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C) No.192 of 2016

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 192/2016

¶44

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

¶45

EXT.P-6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL AND STAY PETITION (WITHOUT ANNEXURES) FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶46

EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON 19.12.2012 FOR DEMOLITION OF THE BUILDING

¶47

EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.1.2013 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶48

EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.6.2014 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶49

EXT.P-4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 19.6.2014

¶50

EXT.P-5: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.B-264/13 DATED 21.11.2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT

¶51

EXT.P-7: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED 28.11.2014 IN WPC NO.31859/2014

¶52

EXT.P-8: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 31.12.2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶53

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

¶55

PA TO JUDGE

Rasheed P.S. v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rasheed P.S. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smitha T.S Vs Puthur Grama Panchayat

Smitha Vs Puthur Grama Panchayat

Sasi.K.B Vs the Range Forest Officer

Arun Vs State of Kerala

Asokan Vs State of Kerala

Kunjamma Devassia Vs Kottangal Grama Panchayat