Kerala High Court
Joseph Michel vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 19 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 27TH ASWINA, 1945
WP(C) NO. 28551 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
JOSEPH MICHEL, AGED 49 YEARS
S/O MICHEL, CONVENOR PRAVITHANAM POWRASAMITHI,
RESIDING AT KARIMAMTHADATHIL HOUSE,
PRAVITHAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
BY ADV JOSEPH T.JOHN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
PALA, KOTTAYAM-686001
2 SECRETARY, BHARANANGANAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
OFFICE, BHARANANGANAM, KOTTAYAM-686578
3 PWD ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PW ROAD SECTION,
MELUKAVU, KOTTAYAM-686682
4 SHINTO JOSEPH, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE,
PRAVITHANAM P.O., BHARANANGANAM VILLAGE,
KOTTAYAM-686651
BY ADVS.
J.PRAKASH C.VADAKKAN
P.C.HARIDAS
SRI. P.S.APPU, GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC 28551/22
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner alleges that the 4 th respondent has encroached
into 'Pravithanam - Ullanadu' PWD road, particularly into its
drainage system, and has put a pole in it to install permanent gate;
thus reducing its width from 8 metres to 6.5 metres. He says that
he, along with members of certain 'Poura Samithi' approached
respondents 1 to 3 through Exts.P1, P2 and P4; but that no action
has been taken thereon until now. He thus prays that the competent
among respondents 1 to 3 be directed to ensure that the illegal
construction is stopped because otherwise, the residents of the
locality will be put to irreparable prejudice.
2. In response to the afore submissions made by Sri.Joseph
T. John - learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for
the 4th respondent submitted that his client has not made any illegal
construction, but that it appears to have done by somebody else.
He, therefore, left it to this Court to issue appropriate orders.
3. The learned Government Pleader, in response, submitted
that, since the allegation is against alleged encroachment into a
WPC 28551/22
drainage system under the control of the Grama Panchayat, it is the
2nd respondent who will have to take the initial action.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat,
submitted that if this Court is inclined to direct the 2nd respondent
to take up the complaint of the petitioner and to dispose it of,
there does not appear to be any legal impediment in doing so; but
prayed that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations
on his entitlement to any relief and leave it to the competent
Authority to take a final decision as per law.
In the afore circumstances and since this Court cannot enter
into the merits of the rival contentions, while acting under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, at least at the first instance, I
allow this Writ Petition and direct the 2nd respondent - Secretary of
the Panchayat, to immediately take up Ext.P2 complaint preferred
by the petitioner and dispose it of, after affording him, the 4th
respondent, as also any other person who may be interested, an
opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate
order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible,
but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
WPC 28551/22
this judgment.
Sd/-
RR DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
WPC 28551/22
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28551/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
19.08.2022
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
DATED 25-8-2022
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DATED
25-8-2022
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R4A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.163/2022
OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERATTUPETTA
Exhibit R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT IN OS
NO.163/2022 OF THE MUNSIF'S COURT
ERATTUPETTA
