Alex Tom.E.Vettoor vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 20615 Ker

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
     TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 3786 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          ALEX TOM.E.VETTOOR
          AGED 55 YEARS
          S/O.LATE EAPEN, VETTOR HOUSE, ETTUMANOOR VILLAGE,
          KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 631.

          BY ADVS.
          V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR)
          SRI.N.RAJESH
          SHRI.GOPAKUMAR P.



RESPONDENTS:
     1     STATE OF KERALA
           REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
           PUBLIC WORKS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

    2     DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM,
          CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM-686 002.

    3     REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOTTAYAM,
          REVENUE TOWER, KOTTAYAM-686 001.

    4     EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
          PWD (ROADS), KOTTAYAM-686 001.

    5     ETTUMANOOR MUNICIPALITY,
          REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,
          ETTUMANOOR-686 631.

          BY ADV SHRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY, SC, ETTUMANOOR
          MUNICIPALITY


          RIYAL DEVASSY-GP


    THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
05.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 3786 OF 2021

                                             2


                                    JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

"i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P10 order and quash the offensive conditions in the order (i.e condition Nos.1 &

3) by issue of a writ of certiorari.

ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the 5th respondent to accord permission to the petitioner to construct the ramp referred in Exhibit P10 order at a minimum width of 6 meters on the top."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Pleader as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing

for the 5th respondent Municipality.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner owns 1.35 hectares of land in Re-survey Nos.147/5/1, 147/17,

148/1, 148/2, 148/4, 148/5 and 148/6 in block no.31 of Peroor Village,

Kottayam Taluk, Kottayam District. It is submitted that 4 ares of property

had been acquired by the Government for the formation of the

Mannarkad-Pattithanam bye pass road. It is submitted that the road was

formed after reclamation to average height of 10 feet and granite

protection walls were constructed on either side. It is submitted that this WP(C) NO. 3786 OF 2021

resulted in the property of the petitioner being rendered at a much

lower level than the road. The petitioner therefore submitted an

application for the construction of a ramp from the road to the property

for access to his property. It is submitted that the request have been

forwarded to the Municipality for a proper consideration and that the

District Collector had also issued Ext.P8 permission for the construction.

It is submitted that the petitioner had executed Ext.P9 contract with the

Public Works Department on the terms and conditions as provided

therein. The only condition provided was the construction of a ramp

should be done without damaging the existing PWD road and the

retaining wall and that the petitioner would raise no claim to ownership

of any land on the PWD road. It is submitted that thereafter, the

Municipality had considered the application submitted by the petitioner

and had passed Ext.P10 order on 3.8.2020. Though permission had been

granted for construction of the ramp, it has been specified that the width

of the ramp at the top portion i.e. the PWD road portion would be only 3

meters and that the width at the bottom portion would be 6 meters.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext.P11

representation had been submitted by the petitioner before the WP(C) NO. 3786 OF 2021

Municipality pointing out that the construction of a ramp having a width

of 3 meter at the top portion would not meet the requirement of the

petitioner since vehicular access would be rendered dangerous and

difficult, if the width was limited to 3 meters at the portion were the

ramp meets the PWD road. It is pointed out that there was no such

condition provided either by the PWD or by the District Collector in the

permissions granted and that therefore the said condition cannot be

imposed by the Municipality.

5. A statement has been placed on record by the 5 th respondent. It is

stated that a width of 20 meters is not necessary for taking vehicles into

the property of the petitioner and that since the ramp was being

constructed from a PWD road, the construction has to be in accordance

with the stipulations of the permissions granted by the District Collector

and the PWD. It is further stated that if the PWD and the Revenue

Department have no objection in the petitioner constructing a ramp with

6 meters width at the top, the Municipality is also having no objection

for the same.

6. Having considered the contentions advanced and having heard

the learned counsel on all sides, I notice that the permissions granted to WP(C) NO. 3786 OF 2021

the petitioner by Ext.P8 as also the contract entered into in Ext.P9 do not

impose a condition with regard to the width of the ramp where it meets

the PWD road. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that

the conditions contained in Ext.P10 to the effect that the ramp should

have only a width of 3 meters where it meets the PWD road is not

justifiable.

In the above view of the matter and in view of the submissions

made by the 5th respondent in the statement, there will be a direction to

the respondents to permit the construction of a ramp having a width of 6

meters from the PWD road to the petitioner's property. The other

conditions provided in Exts.P9 and P10 shall govern the construction.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE SVP WP(C) NO. 3786 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 3786/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE BEARING NO.KL05032101565/2018 DATED 09.05.2018.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE BEARING NO.KL05032102690/2019 DATED 14.05.2019.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS (4 IN NOS.) SHOWING THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AND THE ROAD.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 12.11.2019.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER BEARING NO.DCKTM/9687/2019-K5 ON 29.11.2019 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.F-347/2020 DATED 04.02.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WPC 4865/20 DATED 20.02.2020 OF THE HON'BEL COURT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.DCKTM/9687/2019-K5 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 30.06.20.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF AGREEMENT BEARING NO.03/AEE/2000-21 DATED 25.05.20 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KOTTAYAM.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO.E2-6263/2020 DATED 03.08.20 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

WP(C) NO. 3786 OF 2021

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT ON 12.11.20.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 12.11.20 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P11 PETITION.