Kerala High Court
Raveendran vs The Addl.Tahsildar on 11 April, 2024
Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan
WP(C) NO. 17662 OF 2016 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 22ND CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 17662 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:
RAVEENDRAN
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O CHANDRAN @ CHAMI, AGED:57 YEARS, NALLAMPURAKKAL
HOUSE, BLOCK NUMBER 75, W-2, SURVEY NUMBER 3253,
MANALI, PALAKKAD
BY ADV SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE ADDL.TAHSILDAR
PALAKKAD-678001
2 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
PALAKKAD-3 VILLAGE, PALAKKAD DIST-678001
ADDL.R3 PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, PALAKKAD 678 001 (IS
IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 31.05.2016 IN IA
6687/16)
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
SRI.P.S.APPU
SRI.A.R.NIMOD
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 11.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 17662 OF 2016 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C.) No. 17662 of 2016
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers :
"(I) Call for the records leading to exhibit P7 and quash it issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari. (II) Such other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. It is submitted that the 1st respondent issued a notice dated 06.02.2016 to the petitioner alleging that he is occupying 'thodu puramboke' as evident by Ext.P5. On receipt of Ext.P5, the petitioner appeared before the 1st respondent and submitted that even if the property is 'thodu puramboke', the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain the same and the same is vested with the local authority. Thereafter, there was no response from the 1st respondent is the submission. WP(C) NO. 17662 OF 2016 3 Subsequently, the petitioner received, Ext.P7 notice which concludes that the petitioner is in possession of 'thodu puramboke' and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within 15 days and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- also. According to the petitioner, Exts.P5 and P7 are issued by the 1 st respondent is unsustainable for the simple reason that the 1 st respondent has no jurisdiction to issue such orders. According to the petitioner, Sec.208A of the Kerala Municipality Act says that the public water sources, bunds and banks of the rivers, streams etc. should be vested with the local authority. Therefore, the alleged 'thodu puramboke' mentioned in Ext.P7 is vested with the local authority and the 1 st respondent has no jurisdiction in such land is the submission. The petitioner also relied the judgment of this Court in Vathsan v. Razack [2003 KHC 647].
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.
WP(C) NO. 17662 OF 2016 4
4. When this writ petition came up for consideration on 23.05.2016, this Court passed the following order :
"Admit.
The learned Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents.
The petitioners shall also implead the Local Self Government Institution in the party array.
There shall be an interim stay of eviction for a period of two weeks.
Post immediately after two weeks."
5. The interim order was extended until further orders on 15.07.2016 and the same is in force even now. The main contention of the petitioner is regarding the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent to issue Ext.P7. I am of the considered opinion that the 1st respondent should consider the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings as a preliminary issue and thereafter, proceed in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :
WP(C) NO. 17662 OF 2016 5
1) Ext.P7 is set aside.
2) The 1st respondent is directed to decide his
jurisdiction to proceed with the case, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS WP(C) NO. 17662 OF 2016 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17662/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. DECEMBER 15.
2004 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE THAHASILDAR PALAKKAD P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT. MARCH 17, 2009 ISSUED BY THE WARD MEMBER P3 A TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE HUT ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED BY THE PETIITONER P4 THE CURRENT PHOTOGRAPHA OF THE HUT. P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT. FEBRUARY 6.
2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DT FEBRUARY
27. 2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 1PRIL 26, 2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.