C M Alias, vs the District Collector,

C M Alias, vs The District Collector,

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Mar 24, 2022

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1444715

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1444715
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran
Decided On: Mar 24, 2022
Case Number: WP(C)/2171/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

C M Alias,

Respondent

The District Collector,

Excerpt

.....pleader -smt.k. amminikutty, in response to the afore submissions of sri.k.madhusoodanan - learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that this writ petition is unnecessary because the competent respondents have already taken necessary action with respect to their complaint, and that a survey has been now called for under the aegis of the jurisdictional taluk surveyor. she submitted that as soon as the taluk surveyormakes available his report and sketch, requisite action will be taken against the 6th respondent, after following the due procedure.3. the endorsements on the files of this case reveal that the notice issued to the 6 th respondent from this court has been returned “unserved”. however, since i am certain that the directions i propose herein would not cause him any prejudice, i proceed to dispose of this writ petition in the following manner. since the learned senior government pleader affirms that the competent respondents have already initiated action pursuant to the complaint of the petitioners and that survey requisitioned, i am certain that this court will be justified in disposing of this writ petition with the following directions:(a) the 2nd respondent - tahsildar will ensure that the survey with respect to the canal bund is completed, with the assistance of the taluk surveyor, as expeditiously as is possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.(b) on the survey sketch and report being received by thetahsildar, he shall forward the same to the 4 th respondent - executive engineer (pvip), who will then take necessary action against every encroachment, including it found against the 6th respondent; and complete proceedings, after following due procedure, as also after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of the said survey sketch and plan.sd/- devan ramachandran judge anb.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 3RD CHAITHRA, 1944 PETITIONERS: 1 C M ALIAS, AGED 72 YEARS S/O. LATE MATHAI, RESIDING AT CHATHANATH HOUSE, THENGODE P.O., KAKKANAD VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682030. 2 MRS.ELIKUTTY ALIAS, AGED 70 YEARS W/O. C.M. ALIAS, RESIDING AT CHATHANATH HOUSE, THENGODE P.O., KAKKANAD VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682030. BY ADVS. K.MADHUSOODANAN T.G.PAUL MATHEW JACOB (KUNNATHU) SYRIAC JOSEPH RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM-682030. 2 THE THAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KANAYANNUR - 682011. 3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAKKANAD VILLAGE, KAKKANAD-682030. 4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PVIP, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683108. 5 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PVIP SECTION II, THOTTAKKATTUKARA, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM- 683108. 6 ANEESH M.P., S/O. PARAMESWARAN, MEKKARA HOUSE, THENGODE P.O., KAKKANAD VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-
682030. OTHER PRESENT: SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY SR.G.P. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The petitioners allege that the 6 th respondent has

encroached into certain extents of public lands, which are part of the Canal Bund Road, under the Periyar Valley Irrigation Project (PVIP). They, therefore, pray that the official respondents be directed to take necessary action against the 6th respondent, after demarcating the areas which he is in unauthorized possession and complete such proceedings within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2. The learned Senior Government Pleader -

smt.K. Amminikutty, in response to the afore submissions of Sri.K.Madhusoodanan - learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that this writ petition is unnecessary because the competent respondents have already taken necessary action with respect to their complaint, and that a survey has been now called for under the aegis of the jurisdictional Taluk Surveyor. She submitted that as soon as the Taluk Surveyor

makes available his report and sketch, requisite action will be taken against the 6th respondent, after following the due procedure.

3. The endorsements on the files of this case reveal that the notice issued to the 6 th respondent from this Court has been returned “unserved”. However, since I am certain that the directions I propose herein would not cause him any prejudice, I proceed to dispose of this writ petition in the following manner. Since the learned Senior Government Pleader affirms that the competent respondents have already initiated action pursuant to the complaint of the petitioners and that survey requisitioned, I am certain that this court will be justified in disposing of this writ petition with the following directions:

(a) The 2nd respondent - Tahsildar will ensure that the survey with respect to the Canal Bund is completed, with the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor, as expeditiously as is possible, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(b) On the survey sketch and report being received by the

Tahsildar, he shall forward the same to the 4 th respondent - Executive Engineer (PVIP), who will then take necessary action against every encroachment, including it found against the 6th respondent; and complete proceedings, after following due procedure, as also after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of the said survey sketch and plan.

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE ANB APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2171/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.119/2015. Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PROPERTY. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FROM THE TALUK OFFICE. Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION WITH ENCLOSURES. Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE AE, PVIP TO THE TAHSILDAR FOR FIXING THE PVIP CANAL BOUNDARY. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2022 Same Parties C M Alias, vs The District Collector, Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Devan Ramachandran