Dismissed¶45

Tomy Mathew v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC25 Mar 2025WP(C)/19321/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kerala HC 2025 (neutral citation 2025:KER:25250) single-judge dismissal of writ petition over claimed road/bund rights; theme: disputed factual claims of property/right-of-way cannot be resolved in writ proceedings where counter-affidavit assertions stand uncontradicted; actors: private claimant vs State Seed Farm, Kozha officials and SI of Police, Kuravilangad; documents: Ext.P2 Sub Collector proceedings dated 08.04.1986, Ext.R5(a) survey map of C&D Block Padasekharam; outcome: dismissal with liberty to pursue civil-court relief; locality: Kozha, Kuravilangad, Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner cannot claim any rights over the bund mentioned in Ext.P2 except the right to use it as a walkway. ¶45

Tomy Mathew Vs the State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

WP(C) NO. 19321 OF 2018

¶2

¶3

2025:KER:25250

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶7

TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶8

WP(C) NO. 19321 OF 2018

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

TOMY MATHEW
SON OF MATHEW, AGED 56 YEARS,
CHITTAKKODATHIL HOUSE, KOZHA KARA,
KURAVILANGAD VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BY ADV SRI.JOSE TOM C. KANDATHIL

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM.

¶15

3 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER PALA, KOTTAYAM.

¶16

4 THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE KOTTAYAM.

¶17

5 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER IN CHARGE SOIL TESTING CENTRE, KOZHA, KOTTAYAM.

¶18

6 THE JOINT AGRICULTURAL OFFICER STATE SEED FARM, KOZHA.

¶19

7 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KURAVILANGAD, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶20

WP(C) NO. 19321 OF 2018

¶21

¶22

2025:KER:25250

¶23

SMT. SURYA BINOY, SR.GP

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
25.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

WP(C) NO. 19321 OF 2018

¶26

¶27

2025:KER:25250

¶28

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

¶29

=========================

¶30

W.P.(C) No.19321 of 2018

¶31

=========================

¶32

Dated this the 25^th day of March, 2025

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The petitioner is stated to be the owner of the property comprised in Re. Survey No. 398/3 of Kuravilanagd Village having an extent of 66.4 Ares and residential building thereon. The petitioner claims that he has been granted rights by Ext.P2 proceedings for the usage of the road mentioned therein. Respondents 5 and 7, who are the Agricultural Officer (In Charge), Soil Testing Centre, Kottayam and the Sub Inspector of Police, Kuravilangad, Kottayam, are trying to obstruct the same. The writ petition is filed to direct respondents 4 to 7 to comply with the directions of the Revenue Divisional Officer as per Ext.P2 and not to cause any obstruction or hindrance to the petitioner and family from using the road.

¶35

A counter has been filed on behalf of respondents 5 and 6,

¶36

WP(C) NO. 19321 OF 2018

¶37

¶38

2025:KER:25250

¶39

completely denying the allegations made by the petitioner. It is pointed out that the walkway mentioned in Ext.P2 is a bund owned by the State Seed Farm, Kozha and is being maintained by State Seed Farm as and when necessary. The petitioner is trying to claim rights to the property not belonging to him based on Ext.P2. The bund referred in Ext.P2 is being used by the farm for the movement of the machineries for use and for their various activities. The petitioner and others are trying to unauthorisedly use the same. It is stated that the height of the bund has now been increased by the illegal maintenance carried out by the petitioner, so much so that the farm machineries, tractor, combined, harvester etc cannot cross over from the farm leading to the abandonment of cultivation and also resulting in fertile Government order land turning fallow. The survey map of the C&D block Padasekharam, received from the Village Officer, Kuravilangad is produced as Ext.R5(a).

¶40

Though a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner,

¶41

there is nothing to contradict the averments made by respondents 5 and 6 in their counter affidavit.

¶42

WP(C) NO. 19321 OF 2018

¶43

¶44

2025:KER:25250

¶45

The petitioner cannot claim any rights over the bund mentioned in Ext.P2 except the right to use it as a walkway. Because of the contentions raised by the petitioner, which cannot be proved in the writ petition, more so based on contentions in the counter affidavit filed by respondents 5 and 6, no reliefs can be granted in this writ petition, and the same is dismissed, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to approach the civil court for appropriate relief, if so advised.

¶46

Sd/- MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.,

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

¶49

WP(C) NO. 19321 OF 2018

¶50

¶51

2025:KER:25250

¶52

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIBITS :

¶54

`EXHIBIT`	`P1`	`TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 10/05/2018.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P2`	`TRUE COPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE SUB COLLECTOR` `KOTTAYAM DATED 08/04/1986.`
`EXHIBIT`	`P3`	`TRUE COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS (3 NUMBERS)`
`EXHIBIT`	`P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST PAGE OF THE COMPLAINT` `GIVEN BY THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER TO THE` `3RD RESPONDENT`
`EXHIBIT`	`P5`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON THE` `WEDDING DAY OF THE SISTER OF THE PETITIONER` `ON 26/11/1989`
`EXHIBIT`	`P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN ON THE DAY` `OF THE MARRIAGE OF ANOTHER SISTER OF THE` `PETITIONER ON 29/06/1997`
`EXHIBIT`	`P7`	`TRUE COPY OF THE LOCATION SKETCH ISSUED BY` `THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 27/09/2017`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8`	`TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST GIVEN BY THE` `PETITIONER`
`EXHIBIT`	`P8 (A)`	`TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21.06.2018.`
`RESPOND`	`ENT EXHIBITS`	`:`
`EXHIBIT`	`R5(a)`	`TRUE COPY OF SURVEY MAP OF C AND D BLOCK` `PADASHEKARAM BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,` `KURUVILANGAD`

¶55

// True Copy // PA To Judge

Tomy Mathew v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tomy Mathew v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maheen R., Vs Adoor Municipality

Balkees, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Collector [Corrected]

Nandakumar, Vs State of Kerala

Navas Vs State of Kerala

Subair K.H., Vs State of Kerala

The Principal, Karuna Medical College Vs the Kerala University of Health Sciences