Kerala High Court
Prasanna P vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 8 July, 2021
WP(C) NO. 11754 OF 2021 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 17TH ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 11754 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
PRASANNA P.,
AGED 63 YEARS
RAJITH BHAVAN, MALOOR P.O., VATTAKALA, PATHANAPURAM,
KOLLAM, PIN-689695.
BY ADVS.
LIJIN THAMBAN
MOBIN JACOB
RESPONDENT/S:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
PUNALUR, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691305.
2 THE TAHSILDAR,
(LR), PATHANAPURAM TALUK, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN-
691306.
3 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
PWD ROADS DIVISION, MINI CIVIL STATION,
PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM-689695.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 08.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 11754 OF 2021 2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein states that she is the absolute owner in title and
possession of property having an extent of 2.12 Ares in Old Survey No.2854/2
of Pattazhi Village. The property was acquired on the cover of sale deed
No.334/93 of SRO, Pattazhy. Based on a complaint lodged by a certain Miss.
Bindu, a neighbour of the petitioner, the 1st respondent initiated proceedings
which culminated in the issuance of Ext.P1 order under Section 145(1) of the
Cr.P.C. While passing Ext.P1 order, the 1st respondent took note of the fact
that the petitioner and Miss Bindu had encroached upon Government
puramboke and directions were issued to measure out the same and to inform
the PWD authorities to take appropriate action to remove the encroachment.
2. It appears that Miss. Bindu approached this Court seeking various
reliefs and by Ext.P2 judgment, this Court directed the PWD to initiate
appropriate action and to remove encroachments from the PWD road.
3. While so, the petitioner approached this Court and filed W.P.(C)
No.24185/2019 challenging Ext.P1 order. This Court refused to interfere but
granted the petitioner a breathing time to avail appropriate remedies.
4. Later, the petitioner was served with Ext.P4 notice by the
Executive Engineer, PWD invoking Section 15(2) of the National Highways
Act. The petitioner challenged the said notice before this Court by preferring
W.P.(C) No. 28891/2020. After evaluating the facts and circumstances, by
Ext.P5 judgment, this Court refused to interfere with the notice. Necessary
directions were issued to the concerned respondents to remove the
encroachments made by the petitioner as well as Bindu upon the road
puramboke.
5. According to the petitioner, she has now preferred Ext.P6
application for lease of land under Section 13(b) of the Kerala Land
Assignment Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). However, her
request was rejected holding that the property forms part of the road
puramboke and that it is for her to approach the PWD authorities. Being
aggrieved, she has approached the 1st respondent and has filed an appeal
under Rule 21 of the Rules. Her solitary prayer in this writ petition is for a
direction to the 1st respondent to consider her appeal and take appropriate
decision in a time bound manner.
6. The learned Government Pleader, Smt. A C Vidhya, submitted
that Rule 13 (b) of the Rules deals with the lease of land for beneficial
enjoyment of adjoining holding. According to the learned Government Pleader,
'beneficial enjoyment' has been defined under Rule 2 (cd) of the Rules to
mean the enjoyment of land for purposes like providing approach road to the
assignee's registered holding and protection of his watercourse, standing
crops and buildings. The learned Government Pleader would also refer to Rule
13 of the Rules and it was argued that encroachment upon land on the sides
of the PWD road cannot be the subject matter of a lease.
7. I have anxiously considered the submissions advanced.
8. Undisputedly, this Court on more than one occasion had occasion
to hold that the petitioner had encroached upon puramboke land. That issue
cannot now be re-agitated. Probably, for that reason, the petitioner has now
filed an application for lease invoking the relevant provisions of the Land
Assignment Rules. The 2nd respondent has rejected her request against which
Ext.P8 appeal has been preferred. Now that the appeal is pending
consideration of the 1st respondent, necessary directions can be issued to
take up the appeal and dispose it of in an expeditious manner.
9. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st
respondent to take up Ext.P8 appeal and finalize the same with notice to the
petitioner and affected parties, if any, strictly in accordance with law. The
entire exercise shall be completed expeditiously, in any event, within a period
of 45 days from today.
The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with this
judgment before the 1st respondent on or before 20-7-2021.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
DSV
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11754/2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURE
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT DATED 1.2.2019.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
14316/2019 DATED 1.8.2019.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
18.9.2019 IN WP(C) 24185/2019.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.12.2020.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)
28891/2020 DATED 23.3.2021.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY
THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 7.12.2020.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6-
7678/20/KDIS, DATED 18.1.2021 OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 27.3.2021 BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL
