Gopakumar vs The Tahasildar
2021 Latest Caselaw 19289 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
 TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 23RD BHADRA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 12647 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          GOPAKUMAR
          AGED 53 YEARS
          S/O KUTTAPPAN, NELLORETHU HOUSE, VADAKKEDATHUKAVU
          P.O., ADOOR-691 526.

             BY ADVS.
             L.RAM MOHAN
             M.AUBREY ABRAHAM ISAAC



RESPONDENTS:

     1     THE TAHASILDAR,
           ADOOR TALUK REVENUE TOWER, ADOOR-691 523.

     2     THE VILLAGE OFFICER
           ERATH VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK-691 526.

     3     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
           CIVIL STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA-689 645.

     4     THE N.S.S.KARAYOGAM NO 377,
           VADAKKEDATHUKAVU, ADOOR TALUK, REPRESENTED BY ITS
           SECRETARY, PIN 691 523.

           BY ADVS.
           R.T.PRADEEP
           M.BINDUDAS
           K.C.HARISH



OTHER PRESENT:

             AMMINI KUTTY (GP)


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   14.09.2021,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 12647 OF 2021            2

                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court with a

singular plea that the competent respondent be

directed to take up Ext.P2 representation of his and

initiate appropriate action thereon, under the

provisions of the applicable laws, including the Land

Conservancy Act.

2. The petitioner says that the 4th respondent is

holding land by encroachment over Government

'Puramboke' and that therefore, the competent

respondent are under a duty to take necessary action

and evict them. The petitioner says that, however,

even though he has preferred Ext.P2 as early as on

16.04.2021, no action has been taken thereon by any

of the official respondents; and thus prays that they

be directed to do so, within a time frame to be fixed

by this Court.

3. I have heard Shri.L.Ram Mohan, the learned

counsel for the petitioner; Shri.R.T.Pradeep, learned

counsel appearing for the 4th respondent and

Smt.K.Amminikutty, learned Senior Government Pleader

appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

4. Shri.R.T.Pradeep, learned counsel for the 4th

respondent, submitted that the entire allegations

contained in Ext.P2 are malicious and intended only

as a method of seeking revenge against his client

because the petitioner is their tenant and that

eviction proceedings have been initiated against him.

He then vehementally submitted that his client has

not occupied any Government 'Puramboke' and that they

have in possession of an extent of 2.35 Ares of land

for the last more than a century. He asserted that,

therefore, no action can be now taken against his

client under the Land Conservancy Act on the afore

allegations; and prayed that this writ petition be

dismissed.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader -

Smt.K.Amminikutty, however, submitted that, contrary

to the allegations of the petitioner, action has

already been initiated on Ext.P2 and that a notice

under Form A of the Rules under the Land Conservancy

Act has been issued to the 4th respondent on

13.04.2021. She added that, subsequently, when the

4th respondent attempted to construct a compound

wall, the same has been stopped by the competent

Authorities on 29.06.2021. She submitted that,

therefore, this Court may permit the Authorities

concerned to complete proceedings initiated against

the 4th respondent in terms of law and requested that

this writ petition be ordered on such terms.

6. When I consider the afore submissions, it is

indubitable that this Court cannot enter into the

merits of the rival assertions of the parties at this

stage since, as submitted by the learned Government

Pleader, action has already been taken against the

4th respondent by issuing to them a notice under Form

A. Obviously, therefore, the 4th respondent has a

statutory right to answer it and to establish their

ownership or possession over the property in

question; and it will not be proper or prudent for

this Court to make any affirmative declarations in

their favour or against them at this stage.

Resultantly, recording the afore submissions of

Smt.K.Amminikutty, I order this writ petition and

direct the competent respondent to complete

proceedings, based on the notice under Form A issued

against the 4th respondent; however, after following

due procedure and after affording necessary

opportunities of being heard to both the said

respondent and also the petitioner.

The afore exercise shall be completed by the

Authorities without any avoidable delay and as

expeditiously as is possible.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE MC/23.9

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12647/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.3.21 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT

Exhibit P2 COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 16.4.21