Kerala High Court
C.T.Joseph vs State Of Kerala on 1 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
TUESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 23445 OF 2013
PETITIONER/S:
C.T.JOSEPH
AGED 80 YEARS
S/O.LATE THOMAS, KALIYIL HOUSE, NEAR SB HIGH SCHOOL,
CHANGANACHERRY, CHANGANACHERRY VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY
TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
BY ADV SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
SECRETARY, DEPT. OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,
TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
2 THE SECRETARY DEPT. OF REVENUE
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
3 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
KOTTAYAM CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
5 THE TAHSILDAR
CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, REVENUE TOWER,
CHANGANACHERRY - 686 309.
6 THE VILLAGE OFFICER
MADAPPALLY VILLAGE, THENGANA, CHANGANACHERRY - 686 309.
7 THE GEOLOGIST
OFFICE OF THE GEOLOGIST, MINING & GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT,
CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM - 686 309.
8 THE MADAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
PANCHAYAT OFFICE, MADAPPALLY, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT -
686 230.
WP(C) NO. 23445 OF 2013
2
9 THE SECRETARY MADAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
PANCHAYAT OFFICE, MADAPPALLY - 686 230.
10 GEORGE THOMAS
MANAPARAMBIL, OATHARA WEST, THIRUVALLA - 686 500
11 KAIRALI ASSOCIATES GOLDEN TOWER
IIND FLOOR, ABOVE CENTRAL TOWER, THENGANA,
CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, MAJESH - 686 509.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN
Adhil P
SRI.LAL GEORGE
SRI.V.B.HARI NARAYANAN
SRI.LAL GEORGE
SMT.E.S.SANDHYA
GP JUSTIN JACOB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 23445 OF 2013
3
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
or other appropriate writ directing the respondents No. 8 and
9 to forthwith take up Exts.P1 and P3 and P5 complaints given
by the petitioner conduct enquiry and forthwith restore the
original stature of the property now in the hands of the
respondents 10 and 11 which is situated in the neighboring
property of the petitioner which originally belonged to late
Antony Kalayil and restore the pond and natural water ways
which was existing in the property by removal of the sand/red
earth deposited therein which process was done by the
respondents No.10 and 11 in the absence of the development
permit issued by respondents 8 and 9.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
or other appropriate writ directing the respondents No.3 and
4 or the concerned among them to take up Ext.P9 and P7
conduct enquiry and direct respondents No.5and 6 to
forthwith restore the position of the adjoining property of the
petitioner, which is now in the possession of respondents
No.10 and 11 back to its old stature by removing red earth
and restoring the natural water ways and ponds within a time
to be stipulated by this Honourable court.
(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus
or other appropriate writ, directing the 7th respondent to
forthwith take up Ext.P11 conduct enquiry and take penal
action against the respondents 10 and 11 for moving red earth
without obtaining permit from the respondents 3 and 7 and
also to order restoration of the property which is deposited
with red earth back to its original stature.
2. It has been alleged that some waste is being thrown to
WP(C) NO. 23445 OF 2013
the house of his property and pipe has also been directed towards
his property. These are the disputed questions of fact which cannot
be adjudicated as apparently it is a dispute between the two private
parties. Panchayath has no role to play, for, the permission granted
to the petitioner has not been challenged in the present writ
petition. Parties cannot be permitted to circumvent the procedure
of civil court by impleading the Panchayath and file the writ petition
claiming the relief. In my view the complaints made to the
Panchayath were totally a farcical exercise as proper advice would
be availment of remedy of civil court.
With the aforementioned observation, the writ petition is
dismissed.
SD/-
sab AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 23445 OF 2013
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23445/2013
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
exhibit R11 (a) A copy of the receipt for the payment of
the development permit fee dated 22nd May
Exhibit R6(a) True copy of the extract of the BTR
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXT.P2: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 9TH
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P3:TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
HANDWRITTEN COMPLAINT DATED 27/6/2013.
EXT.P4: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE RECEIPT
DATED 27/6/2013.
EXT.P5: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
COMPLAINT DATED 29/6/2013 ADDRESSED TO THE
8TH AND 9TH RESPONDENTS
EXT.P6: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 9TH
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER
EXT.P8: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT
EXT.P9: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
COMPLAINT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER DATED 29/6/2013.
EXT.P10: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT DATED 01/07/2013.
WP(C) NO. 23445 OF 2013
EXT.P11: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
COMPLAINT DATED 16/8/2013 BEFORE THE 7TH
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P12: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
ACKNOWLEDGMENT CARD SIGNED BY THE 7TH
RESPONDENT.
EXT.P1: TRUE PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE
APPLICTION DATED 18/4/2013 FILED BY THE
PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
R11(a) A COPY OF THE RECIEPT FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT FEE DATED THE 22ND OF MAY 2012.
