N.R.Sunil Kumar vs Executive Engineer
2024 Latest Caselaw 4607 Ker

Kerala High Court

N.R.Sunil Kumar vs Executive Engineer on 6 February, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA, 1945
                      WP(C) NO. 41100 OF 2023
PETITIONER:

             N.R.SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 53 YEARS
             S/O RAMAN, NALUKANDATHIL HOUSE, KATTIKKUNNU, CHEMBU
             P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686608

             BY ADV S.SHYAM



RESPONDENTS:

      1      EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
             PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (BRIDGES), OFFICE OF THE
             EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001

      2      STATE OF KERALA
             REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM,
             COLLECTORATE, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686002

             SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE - GP


      THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   06.02.2024,   THE   COURT    ON   THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 41100 OF 2023
                                   2


                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner says that, on account of the acquisition of

land and the construction of a bridge, he has lost access to his

property; and hence, has been denied his constitutional rights

guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

2. Interestingly, when this matter was called today,

Sri.Shyam S. - learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted

that, in the reply affidavit filed by his client to the counter

affidavit filed by the respondents, he has produced Ext.P7,

which is the Sale Deed under which he has obtained the right

of way over a strip of land lying on the southern side of the

bridge from its owner - a certain Sri.D.Prakashan, who has

agreed that he can use it for ingress and egress to his

property. He submitted that, therefore, his client has now

preferred Ext.P8 representation before the first respondent,

seeking that the said extent of land be used to construct a 13

metre wide road, the cost of which will be much lower than if a

staircase, as proposed by the respondents, is to be

constructed. He, therefore, prayed that Ext.P8 be directed to

be taken up by the first respondent and acceded to, so that a

proper way to his property can be managed, through the strip WP(C) NO. 41100 OF 2023

of land - the right of way over which he has purchased through

Ext.P7.

3. Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose - learned Government

Pleader, submitted that, if the petitioner only requires Ext.P8

to be decided by the first respondent, he would not stand in

the way of appropriate orders being issued; but added that the

construction of a road through a strip of land, over which the

petitioner has only a right of way and that too by the official

Authorities, may not be feasible. He then submitted that, as is

evident from the statement filed by him, the respondents are

ready to construct a fleet of stairs, for him to access the road

from his house and that he cannot claim anything further

because, he himself agreed to the acquisition, knowing fully

well that his property would be put to his situation.

4. Even when I hear the learned Government Pleader on

the afore lines and though I find some force in what he says,

the fact remains that the right of access to his property is an

inuring right of the petitioner, which cannot be denuded or

denied except through processes of law.

5. In the case at hand, the petitioner says that he has now

been able to obtain a strip of land, over which he has WP(C) NO. 41100 OF 2023

purchased the right of access from its original owner through

Ext.P7 sale deed. Therefore, if the said owner is also

agreeable to the construction of a road through the said strip,

so as to enable the petitioner to have access to his property,

then it is certainly obligated on the first respondent to consider

the same, particularly if the cost of such construction, vis-a-vis

the construction of a staircase, is, as stated by him, lower.

In the afore perspective, I allow this writ petition and

direct the first respondent to take up Ext.P8 application of the

petitioner and consider his plea made therein, adverting to

Ext.P7 Sale Deed, after affording him, as also the owner of the

land mentioned in the afore said sale deed, 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

this judgment.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE stu WP(C) NO. 41100 OF 2023

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41100/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 SALE DEED NO.720/89 DATED 10/3/1989 OF THE VAIKOM SRO

Exhibit P2 TAX RECEIPT DATED 13/5/23 FROM THE CHEMBU VILLAGE OFFICE

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE GAZETTE (EXTRAORDINARY) DATED 12/5/23 ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER

Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 9/6/23 ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER'S BROTHER

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/2/23 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28/211/23 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT

Ext.P7 A true copy of the sale deed dated 16/12/23

Exhibit P8 A true copy of the representation dated 27/12/223

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE CONSENT DATED 20.07.2021