Disposed

K.M.Sekharan v. Parappukara Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC5 Jun 2024WP(C)/9107/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning alleged encroachment and title over property, the Court held that it cannot decide the issue of alleged encroachment in a writ petition under Article 226. The matter was referred to the civil court for final adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to agitate the issue of encroachment before the appropriate civil court; time during pendency to be excluded in limitation calculation.

K.M.Sekharan Vs Parappukara Grama Panchayat — 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
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 9107 OF 2018

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

K.M.SEKHARAN

¶6

AGED 68 YEARS, S/O.RAMANKUTTY,
KALLIKADAVIL HOUSE, PARAPUKKARA VILLAGE,
PONKOTHRA DESOM, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK,
NOW RESIDING AT KALLIKADAVIL HOUSE,NEAR
PERUMBILLISSERI PETROL PUMP,P.O.CHERPU,
THRISSUR 680561

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.M.PREMCHAND
SRI.T.SANJAY
SRI.C.S.SUMESH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 PARAPPUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PARAPPUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, NANDIKARA PO. 680301

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY PARAPUKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PARAPPUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT OFFICE, NANDIKARA PO. 680301

¶11

3 VILLAGE OFFICER PARAPPUKKARA, VILLAGE MUTHURATHIKARA PO,

¶12

PARAPPUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶13

4 KODAKARA BLOCK PANCHAYAT REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,KODAKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT

¶14

5 PRADEEP S/O.CHANDRAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, KOODAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PONGOTHRA, P.O.NELLAYI,THRISSUR DISTRICT BY ADV SMT.M.R.REENA SRI.M.RAJEEVAN, GP

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.9107/2018

¶17

¶18

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.

¶19

W.P.(C).No.9107 of 2018

¶20

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 05^th day of June, 2024

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

¶23

i. To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the respondents not to encroach upon the property of the petitioner comprised in Sy.No.1132/7 of Parapookkara Village and repossess or evict him without legal recourse;

¶24

ii. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order commanding the respondents 1 & 2 to accord a fair chance of hearing before initiating steps to evict the petitioner;

¶25

iii. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order commanding the 3rd respondent to measure the property comprised in Sy. No. 1132 of Parappookkara Village with prior notice to the petitioner;

¶26

iv. To issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order commanding the respondents 1 & 2 not to proceed with any further action of encroaching into the petitioner's

¶27

WP(C).No.9107/2018

¶28

¶29

property without obtaining measurement and sketch from the 3rd respondent;

¶30

v. To issue a writ of mandamus or any declare that the petitioner is the absolute owner in possession of 28 cents of property comprised in Sy. No.1132/7 of Parappookkara Village;

¶31

vi. To render such other orders as are deemed fit and prorer in circumstances of the case;

¶32

When this writ petition came up for consideration on 22.03.2018, this Court passed the following order :

¶33

“Learned Counsel for the Panchayat seeks time for filing counter.

¶34

In the meanwhile, construction, if any, carried out by the Panchayath, the same will be subject to the result of this writ petition. I also make it clear that, the construction shall not be carried out encroaching into the property in accordance with the title held by the petitioner as per Ext.P1.”

¶35

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

¶36

construction is over and there is encroachment. This is

¶37

disputed by the counsel for the Panchayat and the counsel takes me through the counter filed by the Panchayat. I do not want to make any observation regarding the alleged encroachment. This Court cannot decide the same in a writ

¶38

WP(C).No.9107/2018

¶39

¶40

petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner can agitate the same before the appropriate civil court in accordance with law.

¶41

Granting liberty to the petitioner to do the needful in accordance with law, this writ petition is disposed of. If any civil proceedings are initiated by the petitioner, the time during which this writ petition was pending before this Court shall be excluded while calculating limitation, if any.

¶42

sd/-

¶43

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

JUDGE

WP(C).No.9107/2018

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9107/2018

¶49

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶50

`EXHIBIT P1`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 442/1951` `OF SRO NELLAYI`
`EXHIBIT P2`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FAMILY MEMBERSHIP`
	`CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE` `OFFICE PARAPUKKARA`
`EXHIBIT P3`	`TRUE COPIES OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPTS` `DATED` `17.06.2011,` `17.06.2010,`
	`24/07/2009, 09/07/2008, 9/10/2006,`
	`18/05/1995, 16.05.1994 ISSUED BY 3RD` `RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER FOR PAYMENT`
	`OF PROPERTY TAX IN SY. NO. 1132/7 OF` `PARAPUKKARA VILLAGE`
`EXHIBIT P4`	`TRUE` `COPY` `OF` `THE` `POSSESSION`
	`CERTIFICATE DATED 08.01.2012 ISSUED BY` `THE 3RD RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 184/2012` `OF SRO NELLAYI`
`EXHIBIT P6`	`TRUE COPIES OF THE TAX RECEIPTS ISSUED` `BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR PAYMENT OF`
	`TAX FOR 28 CENTS OF PROPERTY IN SY.` `NO. 1132/7 OF PARAPUKKRA VILLAGE`
`EXHIBIT P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE` `1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH DATED` `08.04.2013`
`EXHIBIT P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY` `THE PETITIONER DATED 10.05.2013`
`EXHIBIT P9`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING` `THE ENCROACHMENT AND DAMAGES CAUSED TO` `THE PETITIONERS PROPERTY`

¶51

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT R1:- A TRUE COPY OF THE PRE-LITIGATION
PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 19-09-2012.

¶53

EXHIBIT R1 (A):- A TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD PASSED BY
THE LOK ADALATH, IRINJALAKUDA DATED 2-11-2012.

¶54

WP(C).No.9107/2018

¶55

¶56

EXHIBIT R1 (B):- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FROM THE ADDL.TAHASILDAR
MUKUNDAPURAM.

¶57

EXHIBIT R1 (C):- A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED
BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR.

¶58

EXHIBIT R1 (D):- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SENT BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 08-04-2013

¶59

EXHIBIT R1 (E):- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER
SENTBY THE PETITIONER DATED 10-05-2013.

¶60

EXHIBIT R1 (F):- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DENT BYTHE
2ND RESPONDENT TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER CONCERNED DATED
05-06-2013.

¶61

EXHIBIT R1 (G):- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED
BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FROM THE SECRETARY BLOCK
PANCHAYATH IRINJALAKUDA DATED 02-11-2017.

¶62

EXHIBIT R1 (H):- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04-11-2017.

¶63

EXHIBIT R1 (I):- A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 30-10-2017.

¶64

EXHIBIT R1 (J):- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SENT BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31-03-2018.

¶65

EXHIBIT R1 (K):- A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SENT BY
THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 31-03-2018.

¶66

WP(C).No.9107/2018

¶67

¶68

EXHIBIT R1 (1) & (M) :- A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER AND
REPORTISSUEDBYTHESECRETARY,BLOCK
PANCHAYATH,IRINJALAKUDA DATED 27-04-2018.

¶69

EXHIBIT R1 (N) & ((O)) / (- A) TRUE COPY OF THE
LETTER AND SKETCH ARE SENT BY THE ASST. EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, L.S.G.D. DIVISION BLOCK PANCHAYATH,
IRINJALAKUDA DATED 25.04.2018

K.M.Sekharan v. Parappukara Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.M.Sekharan v. Parappukara Grama Panchayat

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

Remi P.T Vs the State of Kerala

Syamlal H.S Vs the State of Kerala

Yogini Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Tahasildar, Tirur Taluk

Saramma Thomas Vs State of Kerala

M.K.Babu Vs Union of India

M/S. Karothukuzhy Polymers Vs State of Kerala