Disposed

K.Sadanandan v. the District Collector Pathanamthitta

Kerala HC11 Jun 2024WP(C)/3988/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought enforcement of a Sub Divisional Magistrate's order against encroachments on Puramboke land in V. Kottayam Village and consideration of his complaint. The Court retained its earlier interim direction restraining activity violating the order, and directed the competent authority to act if the principle of Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. v. State of Kerala applied.

What did the court decide?

Interim order dated 06.02.2018 retained; competent authority to do needful per Plantation Corporation principle if applicable.

K.Sadanandan Vs the District Collector Pathanamthitta — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946

¶4

WP(C) NO. 3988 OF 2018

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

K.SADANANDAN AMBADIYIL NEW BUNGLOW, PANNIVIZHA, ADOOR P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶7

BY ADVS.
SRI.ENOCH DAVID SIMON JOEL
SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645.

¶10

2 SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

¶11

ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 693.

¶12

3 VILLAGE OFFICER

¶13

V. KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 656.

¶14

4 PRAMADOM GRAMA PANCHAYAT LAKKOOR, MALLISSERY P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA- 689 646, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

5 N. SHEKHARAN NAIR SHAILAJA BHAVAN, V.KOTTAYAM, PATHANAMTHITTA -689 656.

¶16

6 KANJIRAPARA THUDIYURULIPARA DEWASOM TRUST REG NO. PTM/TC/257/2014, V KOTTAYAM, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 656 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. KUNJUKUNJU.

¶17

BY ADVS.
SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX
SRI.V.SETHUNATH
SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 11.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P.(C) No. 3988 of 2018

¶20

¶21

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶22

¶23

W.P.(C) No. 3988 of 2018

¶24

¶25

Dated this the 11^th day of June, 2024

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This writ petition is filed seeking the

¶28

following reliefs:

¶29

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondents 1 to 4 to initiate immediate and effective steps to ensure strict compliance of Ext.P1 order.

¶30

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing Respondents 1 to 4 to remove and prevent all encroachments in the Puramboke situated in Sy. No. 157 in Block No. 31 of V. Kottayam Village, in defiance of Ext.P1 order.

¶31

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order a direction directing the 1 st Respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 immediately.

¶32

iv) Issue such other appropriate writ order or direction that may be deemed to be just

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 3988 of 2018

¶34

¶35

and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶36

When this writ petition came up for

¶37

consideration on 06.02.2018, this Court passed the following orders:

¶38

“Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 to 3. Urgent notice by speed post to respondents 4 to 6, returnable in two weeks. Post after service is complete.

¶39

In the meanwhile, there will be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to ensure that, no activity is taking place in violation of Ext.P1 order passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 15.11.2014, if the order is in force even now.”

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the light of the decision of this Court in Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited v. State of Kerala [2024 (4) KHC 1] , the authority has to take appropriate steps.

¶41

Heard the Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat. I think there is some force in the argument of the learned

¶42

W.P.(C) No. 3988 of 2018

¶43

¶44

counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the interim order dated 06.02.2018 is retained. If the principle in Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited v. State of Kerala is applicable, the competent authority amongst the respondents will do the needful to implement the same also.

¶45

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of retaining the order dated 06.02.2018.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

¶48

¶49

W.P.(C) No. 3988 of 2018

¶50

¶51

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3988/2018

¶52

`PETITION`	`ER’S`	`EXHIBITS`
`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF`	`THE OR`	`DER`	`DTD.`
		`15.11.2014` `AND`	`NUMB`	`ERED`	`AS`
		`5981/2014/C1 ISS` `RESPONDENT.`	`UED BY`	`THE`	`2ND`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF TH`	`E COMPLA`	`INT`	`DATED`
		`17.02.2015 SUBMIT` `PEOPLE BEFORE THE`	`TED BY` `1ST RES`	`THE` `PONDE`	`LOCAL` `NT.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE COPY OF TH`	`E COMPLA`	`INT`	`DATED`
		`23.01.2018` `SUBM`	`ITTED`	`BY`	`THE`
		`PETITIONER` `BEF` `RESPONDENT.`	`ORE`	`THE`	`1ST`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3(A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE 1ST RESPONDEN`	`RECEIPT` `T.`	`ISSU`	`ED BY`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE 6TH RESPONDEN`	`PAMPHLET` `T.`	`ISS`	`UED BY`

¶53

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL

¶54

//TRUE COPY//

K.Sadanandan v. the District Collector Pathanamthitta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sadanandan v. the District Collector Pathanamthitta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Jabbar.P.K Vs the Registrar, University of Calicut

Valsamma Vs Union of India

Gopi M Vs State of Kerala

Sambhu K S Vs State of Kerala

Aboobacker Tholoor Vs State of Kerala

Arif M.T. Vs the District Collector, Malappuram