Disposed

Jose George, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC4 Apr 2024WP(C)/34335/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that factual disputes on encroachment and property rights cannot be decided in a writ petition and must be agitated in a civil court. The Panchayat was directed to decide on occupancy certificate within six weeks by considering defects listed in Ext.P22.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Panchayat to consider granting occupancy certificate within six weeks by curing defects 1-12 noted in Ext.P22, treating numbering on submitted documents as provisional.

Jose George, Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

W.P(C) No.34335/23

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. THURSDAY, THE 4^TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 15TH CHAITHRA, 1946

¶6

WP(C) NO. 34335 OF 2023

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

JOSE GEORGE, AGED 56 YEARS

¶9

S/O. GEORGE JOSEPH, KADAVIL FIELD VILLA, PALLIPURAM P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688541

¶10

BY ADVS.

¶11

JOBI JOSE KONDODY G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

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

¶14

2 THE CHENNAM PALLIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHENNAM PALLIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, PALLIPURAM P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688541

¶15

3 THE SECRETARY, CHENNAM PALLIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, CHENNAM PALLIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, PALLIPURAM.P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688541

¶16

4 ST.MARY'S FORANE CHURCH, PALLIPURAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS EXCELLENCY, THE ARCH BISHOP OF ERNAKULAM ANGAMALY ARCH DIOCESE, BROADWAY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031

¶17

5 FR.THOMAS VAIKATHUPARAMBAN, VICAR, ST.MARY'S FORANE CHURCH, PALLIPURAM.P.O,

¶18

W.P(C) No.34335/23

¶19

¶20

CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688541

¶21

6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLIPURAM VILLAGE OFFICE, PALLIPURAM.P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688541

¶22

7 THE TAHSILDAR, CHERTHALA TALUK OFFICE, POLICE STATION ROAD, NEAR MINI CIVIL STATION, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN - 688524

¶23

BY ADVS. C.G.BINDU B.SAJEEV KUMAR AJITHA C.G. THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN

¶24

OTHER PRESENT:

¶25

SMT.SHEEBA, GP

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

W.P(C) No.34335/23

¶28

¶29

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J

¶30

............................................................ W.P(C) No.34335 of 2023

¶31

Dated this the 4^th day of April, 2024

¶32

JUDGMENT

¶33

The petitioner is stated to be the owner in possession of 3.87 Ares of land comprised in Survey Nos.222/2-5-2 of Pallippuram Village in Cherthala Taluk of Alappuzha District. The petitioner submits that there is a four-shutter commercial building situated therein, a portion of which was demolished and a shopping complex was constructed on the strength of Ext.P6 building permit and plan granted. After the completion of the building, he filed Ext.P10 application for numbering the building, before the 3^rd respondent, producing Ext.P11 completion certificate. The 3^rd respondent required the petitioner to produce a certificate from the 6^th respondent Village Officer stating that the petitioner has constructed the building within the property covered by Exts.P1 and P2.

¶34

Before the building was numbered, the 5^th respondent had filed a complaint before the 3^rd respondent alleging that the petitioner had encroached into the property of the 4^th respondent, which, according to him, is lying adjacent to the property covered by Ext.P1 deed. The petitioner submits that he had obtained Ext.P3 sketch from the Village Officer, countersigned by the Sub Collector, but the same was rejected by Ext.P13 order passed by the 3^rd respondent. The stand of respondents 4 and 5 is that the petitioner had

¶35

W.P(C) No.34335/23

¶36

¶37

encroached upon their property by putting up the construction and that the Panchayat in their counter affidavit had made false averments which cannot be accepted.

¶38

Earlier, this Court had passed an interim order on 19.2.2024, directing the petitioner to cure the defects pointed out by the 3rd respondent and recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same will be cured within a week and the same will be intimidated to the Panchayat. The petitioner submits that the same has been done and Ext.P22 issued raising certain other defects by letter dated 13.3.2024.

¶39

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents 4 and 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat, I am of the view that the disputes raised by either party on the question of encroachment of any property has to be agitated in the properly constituted civil court. The decision of the civil court will override the decision of the revenue authorities or even the entries in their records. The apprehension of respondents 4 and 5 that the statement of the Panchayat is wrong can also be challenged before the civil court as in this writ petition, factual disputes touching property rights cannot be entertained, much less decided.

¶40

It is seen from the letter dated 13.3.2024, Ext.P22, that 12 defects are noted about the construction of the building. The other defects include the direction to produce documents relating to property rights.

¶41

W.P(C) No.34335/23

¶42

¶43

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the Panchayat to consider the grant of occupancy certificate on the petitioner curing the defects numbered as 1 to 12 in Ext.P22. To grant a provisional number, the Panchayat can rely on the village/revenue authorities/public records produced by the petitioner. In case the Panchayat maintains further doubt on the documents submitted by the petitioner, it will be open to them to intimate the same to the petitioner, in which case the petitioner will have to take recourse to a civil suit for appropriate reliefs. It is made clear that all other contentions of the petitioner and respondents 4 and 5 are left open.

¶44

A decision shall be taken by the Panchayat on the grant of occupancy certificate based on the observations made above, within six weeks from the date of intimation of the petitioner curing defect Nos.1 to 12 pointed out in Ext.P22. Needless to say, in case the Panchayat, for reasons to be stated disagrees with the revenue records, the numbering of the building on the documents furnished by the petitioner as aforesaid will be provisional and subject to orders to be passed by a civil court.

¶45

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

okb/

W.P(C) No.34335/23

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34335/2023

¶52

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE	SETTLEMENT DEED NO.721/2022
	DATED 14.03.2022 PETITIONER AND HIS	EXECUTED BETWEEN THE FATHER
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE OF EXHIBIT PL DATED	PRIOR TITLE DEED NO.93/1976 10.01.1976
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTERED SURVEYOR	MEASUREMENT PREPARED BY A ON 24.04.2021
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF 15.02.2022 ISSUED ALAPPUZHA CONVERTIN `NILAM' TO THAT OF	THE PROCEEDINGS DATED BY THE SUB COLLECTOR, G THE NATURE OF LAND FROM `PURAYIDOM'
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE 02.03.2022 REMITTED ROOM NOS. 364, 365, OF PALLIPURAM GRAMA	BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED BY THE PETITIONER FOR SHOP 366 AND 367 OF WARD NO. VI PANCHAYATH
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE THE 3RD RESPONDENT	BUILDING PLAN APPROVED BY DATED 26.07.2022
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF T CONSTRUCTION OF CONSTRUCTED BY THE	HE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE GIVEN BY THE THEN V AND THE TRUSTEES O OF THE PETITIONER	AGREEMENT DATED 28.01.1988 ICAR OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT F THE CHURCH TO THE FATHER
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE VICAR OF THE 4TH R OF THE 4TH RESPONDE OVER TO THE FATHER	AGREEMENT PREPARED BY THE ESPONDENT AND TWO TRUSTEES NT DATED 09.09.1988 HANDED OF THE PETITIONER
Exhibit P10	A TRUE COPY OF T RECEIVED BY THE PE NUMBERING THE BUILD	HE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT TITIONER ON 27.05.2023 FOR ING
Exhibit P11	A TRUE COPY OF THE	FINAL BUILDING PLAN DATED

¶53

W.P(C) No.34335/23 7 18.08.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AFTER COMPLETION OF THE BUILDING COVERED VIDE EXHIBIT P6 Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 04.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER FOR PRODUCING BEFORE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 23.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 07.08.2023 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO MR. PRAVEEN ROY Exhibit P15 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE SHOPPING COMPLEX UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT REFERRED TO IN EXHIBIT P14 Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24.09.2023 Exhibit P17 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.09.2023 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 05.10.2023 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT Exhibit P19 TRUE COPY OF THE INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21.10.2023 Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO. 1267/1982 DATED 04.05.1982 Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 25.11.1112 ME EXECUTED BETWEEN THE GRANDFATHER OF THE PETITIONER AND THOMAS ALUNKAL Exhibit P22 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13.03.2024 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P23 TRUE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE ERECTION OF SEPTIC TANK IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING

¶54

W.P(C) No.34335/23

¶55

¶56

	REMOVING THE PAVING TI	LES
Exhibit P24	TRUE PHOTOGRAPH SHOW	ING THE COMPLETION OF
	RAINWATER HARVESTING BUILDING	BY THE SIDE OF THE
Exhibit P25	A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING CHARGING POINT ERECTED	THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE IN THE BUILDING
Exhibit P26	A TRUE PHOTOGRAPH SHOW THE RAMP	ING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
Exhibit P27	PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE IN THE BUILDING	CONSTRUCTION OF URINALS
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R5(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE SALE VAIKKOM S.R.O.	DEED NO.4017/1120 ME OF
Exhibit R 3a	ANNEXURE-R3(A)- TRUE C 21/06/2023 ISSUED BY T PETITIONER	OPY OF THE NOTICE DATED HE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
Exhibit R 3b	TRUE COPY OF THE N ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESP	OTICE DATED 17/02/2024 ONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
Exhibit R3(c)	COPY OF NOTICE DAT SECRETRY, CHENNAM PALL	ED 13/03/2024 OF THE IPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
Exhibit R3(d)	COPY OF REPORT OF A SECTION, CHENNAM PALLI DATED 17/2/2024	SSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD PPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH

Jose George, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jose George, 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

Rajasree N.P., Vs Erathu Grama Panchayat

Ameer Abdulazeez, Vs State of Kerala

Anwar Sha N.N, Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan T.S. Vs State of Kerala

Vimal Mavar, Vs Varapuzha Grama Panchayat

Tilly B. George, Vs the Municipality of Adoor