Kerala High Court
Narasimha Pai V.S vs State Of Kerala on 15 December, 2023
Author: V.G.Arun
Bench: V.G.Arun
W. A. No. 2077 of 2023
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.J.DESAI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
FRIDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA,
1945
WA NO. 2077 OF 2023
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT WP(C) 21225/2023 OF HIGH COURT OF
KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
NARASIMHA PAI V.S.
AGED 74 YEARS
S/O LATE SACHITHANANTHA PAI, VALIYAVEEDU,
CHIRAKKAKAM, VARAPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683517
BY ADVS.
R.KRISHNA RAJ
E.S.SONI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM, PIN
- 695001
2 DISTRICT COLLECTOR
CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
3 TAHSILDAR
PARAVUR TALUK, TALUK OFFICE, POLICE STATION ROAD,
NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683513
4 VILLAGE OFFICER
VARAPPUZHA VILLAGE, VILLAGE OFFICE, CHETTIBHAGOM
MAIN ROAD, VARAPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683517
W. A. No. 2077 of 2023
-2-
5 VARAPPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
PANCHAYATH OFFICE, CHETTIBHAGOM MAIN ROAD,
VARAPPUZHA, ERNAKULAM. REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY., PIN - 683517
6 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
JALABHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM P.O., TRIVANDRUM.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN -
695033
7 ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
OFFICE OF THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA
WATER AUTHORITY, SOUTH KALAMASSERY, ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 683104
8 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
VARAPPUZHA POLICE STATION, NEAR VILLAGE OFFICE,
VARAPPZUHA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683517
OTHER PRESENT:
SR.GP.K.P.HARISH;
SC FOR KWA GEORGIE JOHNNY
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W. A. No. 2077 of 2023
-3-
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 15th day of December, 2023
A. J. Desai, C. J.
By way of the present appeal filed under Section 5 of the
Kerala High Court Act, 1958, the original petitioner has
challenged the judgment dated 03.07.2023 in W. P. (C) No. 21225
of 2023 by which the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the
writ petition, observed that the dispute between the parties with
regard to the property upon which the Kerala Water Authority
intends to put up construction can be decided by a competent civil
court.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in
dismissing the writ petition asking the petitioner to approach the
civil court. In support of his contention, he relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrinalini Padhi v.
Union of India [2018 KHC 4466]. He therefore would submit
that the learned Single Judge ought to have entertained the writ
petition and passed appropriate orders.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the
Kerala Water Authority opposed the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant and supported the judgment of
the learned Single Judge.
4. The writ petition was filed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) Declare that the respondents have no authority to
carry out any construction activities in the property belongs
to the Kuttikkatt Sree Jayadurga Temple, Varappuzha
situated in Sy. No. 323/13 of Varappuzha Village, Paravur
Taluk, Ernakulam District;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 6 & 7 not
to proceed with any construction activities in the property of
the Kuttikkatt Sree Jayadurga Temple situated in Sy. No.
323/13 of Varappuzha Village, Paravur Taluk, Ernakulam
District."
5. In paragraph 4 of the impugned judgment, the learned
Single Judge has made the following observations:-
"4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
Water Authority is going to construct a tank in the middle of
the property owned by the temple. The Standing counsel
appearing for the Water Authority submitted that, it is a
property owned by the Water Authority. In such situation,
this Court can not decide this matter in a writ petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this stage,
the counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, if the
tank is constructing on the side of the property, the petitioner
has no grievance. The petitioner is free to approach the
Water Authority with appropriate representation and if such
a representation is received, the Water Authority will do the
needful in accordance with law. If the petitioner's civil rights
are violated, the petitioner is free to approach the competent
Civil court."
We are in complete agreement with the observations made
by the learned Single Judge in the above paragraph and we are
also of the opinion that the right towards the disputed property,
including the action taken by the Kerala Water Authority for
putting up the construction, can be decided by a competent civil
court. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant is not applicable to the case on hand.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. Pending
Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/-
A. J. DESAI
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
V. G. ARUN
JUDGE
Eb
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE THANDAPER REGISTER
DATED NIL WITH TRANSLATION
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE BTR DATED NIL WITH
TRANSLATION
