C.Preman vs The Assistant Engineer (Pwd) Road ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 5566 Ker

Kerala High Court

C.Preman vs The Assistant Engineer (Pwd) Road ... on 16 February, 2024

Author: Devan Ramachandran

Bench: Devan Ramachandran

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945
                       WP(C) NO. 40312 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:

    1     C.PREMAN, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O. A. CHELLAPPAN,
          KIZHEKKEVILLA VEEDU, KOKKOTHAMANGALAM, MUNDALE P.O.
          NEDUMANGAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695543

    2     KS JESSY, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O. C. PREMAN,
          KIZHEKKEVILLA VEEDU, KOKKOTHAMANGALAM, MUNDALE P.O.
          NEDUMANGAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695543

          BY ADVS.
          MADHU RADHAKRISHNAN
          NELSON JOSEPH
          M.D.JOSEPH
          DEEPAK ASHOK KUMAR


RESPONDENTS:

    1     THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER (PWD) ROAD DIVISION
          ARYANAD, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
          PIN - 695541

    2     THE SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695004

    3     THE TALUK SURVEYOR, NEDUMANGAD TALUK OFFICE,
          NEDUMANGAD, PIN - 695541

    4     THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695043


          SRI. SUNIL K.KURIAKOSE - GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 40312/23
                                         2

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioners impugn Ext.P4 on various grounds, but

particularly that it is extremely vague and without essential details

and relevant sketches being attached thereto.

2. Sri.Madhu Radhakrishnan - learned counsel for the

petitioners, pointed out that, in Ext.P4, what his clients have been

asked to do is to demolish their walls/grills/gate, but without citing

any reason for such a peremptory order. He, therefore, prayed that

the same be set aside and the Authorities be directed not to initiate

any such untenable action.

3. In response, Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose - learned

Government Pleader, submitted that Ext.P4 is consequent to a survey

having been conducted by the competent Authorities, in which, it

was found that the petitioners had constructed their wall/grill/gate

encroaching into public property. He argued that, therefore, Ext.P4 is

irreproachable and prayed that this Writ Petition be dismissed. He,

however, alternatively prayed that if this Court is not inclined to

accept Ext.P4 for the reason that it does not contain details, or is

not accompanied by the necessary sketches, then liberty may be

reserved to the competent Authority to reconsider the same and issue

appropriate orders, in terms of law.

4. When I examine Ext.P4, I find favour with the

submissions of Sri.Madhu Radhakrishnan, that it is rather nebulous

and without clarity. All which the petitioners have been asked to do

is to demolish their wall/grill/gate, but without citing why and

without supporting it with any germane document, including the

survey sketches/report. Obviously, the petitioners cannot act as per

Ext.P4, as it is presently worded.

5. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the alternative

suggestion made by the learned Government Pleader must be

acceded to, particularly when he asserts that a survey has been done

and that the petitioners have been found to be in encroachment of a

public land, which, if true, normally cannot be permitted.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this Writ Petition and set

aside Ext.P4; clarifying that this will not to impede the competent

Authorities from issuing appropriate fresh orders/notices to the

petitioners, however, supported by relevant documents and following

due procedure.

Sd/-

RR                   DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                           JUDGE



                 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 40312/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1           A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED

REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO. 2692 OF 1992 OF SRO , VELLANAD DATED 11/11/1992 Exhibit P2 . A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE ARUVIKKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 1/1/2001 Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED 12/6/2023 BEING PAID BY THE PETITIONERS WITH RESPECT TO THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OWNED BY THEM COVERED UNDER EXHIBIT P1 Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22/11/2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS WITH THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 27/11/2023 RESPONDENT ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a) True copy of the Sketch demarcating the boundary of the petitioner s Property