Baby Panicker vs The State Of Kerala

Kerala High Court

Baby Panicker vs The State Of Kerala on 21 May, 2024

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
         TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
                          WP(C) NO. 34726 OF 2017
PETITIONERS:

     1     BABY PANICKER
           AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.KESAVA PANICKER, PARVATHY BHAVAN,
           CHOONDUPALAKA, KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE, MYLAKKARA P.O.,
           NEYYATTINKARA.

     2     ADDL.P2. T.S.SARIKA
           AGED 71 YEARS, W/O. LATE BABY PANICKER, RESIDING AT PARVATHY
           BHAVAN, CHOONDUPALAKA, KULATHUMMAL VILLAGE, MYLAKKARA
           P.O., NEYYANTINKARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 572.

     3     ADDL.P3. LIJI.B.S
           AGED 50 YEARS, W/O. SANJEEV, RESIDING AT VILLA NO.28,
           SFS JADE GREEN VILLAS, SKYLINE ROAD, PEYAD,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 573.

     4     ADDL.P4. VIJI.B.S
           AGED 48 YEARS, W/O. SHYAMKUMAR, RESIDING AT KRISHNA,
           SNRA ID, SREE NAGAR, MUKKOLAKKAL P.O.,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 009.

     5     ADDL.P5. PRIJILAL.B.S
           AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. LATE BABY PANICKER, RESIDING AT KESAV,
           KALLIKAUD, MYLAKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 572
           (ADDITIONAL P2 TO P5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
           29.09.2022 IN I.A. 1/2022.)

           BY ADVS.
           SRI.K.B.PRADEEP
           SMT.J.HARIPRIYA



RESPONDENTS:

     1     THE STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
           GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001.

     2     DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
           OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
 WP(C) NO. 34726 OF 2017
                              2


           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 043.

    3      LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
           OFFICE OF THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

    4      THAHASILDAR
           KATTAKKADA TALUK, KATTAKKADA,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 572



BY ADV.

           SRI. B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP



        THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 34726 OF 2017
                               3




               P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
           --------------------------------------------
               W.P.(C) No.34726 of 2017
          ----------------------------------------------
        Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024


                          JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

"i) Call for the records leading to Exhibit P-6 order and quash the same by a writ of Certiorari.

ii) Direct the respondents to assign the land having an extent of 4 Acres & 50 cents, comprised in Re.Sy.NO. 241/5 (Old sy no. 410/1/25 & 410/1-19) of Kallikad Village of Neyyattinkara Taluk, in favour of the petitioner by issuing a writ of mandamus.

iii) Issue such other order or writs which this Hon.Court deems fit, proper and equitable in the facts and circumstances of this case" SIC

2. The petitioner's application for assignment WP(C) NO. 34726 OF 2017 4 of land was dismissed by Ext.P6 order by the 3 rd respondent. According to the petitioner, eventhough, the assignment is recommended by the competent authority, the 3rd respondent rejected the same as per Ext.P6. According to the petitioner, he was in possession of the property from 1968 onwards. Different documents are produced before this Court to substantiate the case of the petitioner. The sum substance of the argument is that Ext.P6 is unsustainable.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

4. After going through Ext.P6 order, I am of the considered opinion that, this Court cannot interfere with the same, because, there are disputed facts WP(C) NO. 34726 OF 2017 5 which cannot be decided by this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if the petitioner is advised, he can approach the Civil Court with appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are left open. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner may be allowed to remove the trees planted by him in the property. That question also is left open.

Therefore, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court, this writ petition is disposed of. All the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, are left open.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN nvj JUDGE WP(C) NO. 34726 OF 2017 6 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 34726/2017 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DT.22-02-2016 IN WP(C)NO.28904/2012 & WP(C)NO.1964/2013.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DT.13-12-2016 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION NO.L.R.J-3-16247 DTD 27-03-2017. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 30-03- 2017 IN WP(C)NO.11158 OF 2017.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 22-06-2017 IN CONT.CASE (C) NO.652/2017.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER DATED 05-10-2017 IN REVISION PETITION NO.L.R.J3-16247/2017.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL COVER.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS            :NIL


                          // TRUE COPY //


                           PA TO JUDGE