S. Jesuraj vs The Village Officer
2021 Latest Caselaw 184 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

     TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/15TH POUSHA, 1942

                      WP(C).No.12197 OF 2020(Y)


PETITIONER:

               S. JESURAJ, AGED 58 YEARS,
               S/O.JESURAJ, SUPERIOR,
               AVE MARIA MISSION CENTRE,
               BROTHERS OF SACRED HEART, DEVIKULAM,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685613, MOBILE - 7736822031.

               BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON MANAYANI

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
               KANNAN DEVAN HILLS VILLAGE (K.D.H.),
               DEVIKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 613.

      2        THE TAHSILDAR, DEVIKULAM TALUK,
               DEVIKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 613.

      3        THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
               SPECIAL REVENUE OFFICE, MUNNAR,
               MUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 626.

      4        THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
               COLLECTORATE, PAINAVU P.O.,
               IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 603.

      5        THE SUB COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE SUB COLLECTOR,
               DEVIKULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685 613.

      6        THE STATE OF KERALA,
               REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE,
               SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

               GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. RASHMI K.M.

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD        ON
05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.12197/2020

                                2




                          JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5th day of January, 2021

The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by

Exts.P8 and P9. By Exts.P8 and P9, the petitioner was

refrained from making any unauthorised construction in the

land owned by him in survey No.20/1-2 in KDH Village,

Devikulam Taluk.

2. The petitioner contends that due to landslide,

huge quantity of soil and mud fell adjacent to his building,

the removal of which is highly necessary for the safety of

the building. On 25.06.2020 this Court passed an interim

order directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to

remove the slit and sand from the site in question

specifically as provided in Ext.P7 permission without

making any constructions or alterations in the building,

within three weeks.

WP(C)No.12197/2020

3. The petitioner would submit that pursuant to the

interim order of this Court, soil and mud were removed, but

certain more quantity of soil and mud is remaining in the

compound. The learned counsel for the petitioner would

further submit that certain repair works are necessarily to

be made to the building. The petitioner may be permitted to

remove the remaining mud and repair the building.

4. The learned Government Pleader on the other

hand contended that the petitioner had resorted to

unauthorised construction without permission earlier and

that was the circumstance under which Ext.P9 stop memo

had to be issued. The intention of the petitioner is to make

construction without permission. Therefore no relief need

be granted to the petitioner.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing

for the respondents.

WP(C)No.12197/2020

6. The landslide occurred in the year 2018 in the

area, is not disputed. The grievance highlighted by the

petitioner is that even after removing the soil and mud

pursuant to the directions of this Court, some more soil/mud

is remaining in the compound, removal of which is highly

necessary for the safety of the property. The petitioner also

has to make certain repairs to building, not amounting to

construction or reconstruction. In the circumstances, this

Court is of the opinion that the writ petition can be disposed

of with appropriate directions.

7. Accordingly, the writ petitioner is permitted to

make an application to the 3 rd respondent for removal of

soil/mud from his compound. The 3 rd respondent shall

consider such request and grant permission as is

permissible under law. The petitioner may also make a

proposal before the 3rd respondent describing the repairs

proposed by the petitioner, to the building. If the proposal

does not amount to construction or reconstruction or WP(C)No.12197/2020

material alteration of the building, the 3rd respondent shall

permit the petitioner to carry out such repairs.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above

directions.

Sd/-

N. NAGARESH JUDGE ncd WP(C)No.12197/2020

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT DT. 19.8.1991 OF SALE DEE NO.1528/91 OF SRO DEVIKULAM.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE FOR REMITTANCE OF BUILDING TAX FOR 2020-21 ISSUED BY THE DEVIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH DT. 27.05.2020

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY AND BUILDING - 5 IN NOS.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE OF M.ADIMAI @ ANTONY ADIMAI DT. 30.8.2018 ISSUED BY THE DEVIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DT.3.9.2018

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DT. 7.5.2019 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT. 07.2018

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPYO OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DT. 3.4.2020 TO THE PETITIONER

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DT.27.5.2020.

EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONER'S BUILDING AND THE LAY AND LIE OF THE PROPERTIES.