Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1944 PETITIONER: PRADEEP, AGED 63 YEARS S/O.KUMARAN, KOLLENTAZHIKATHU VEETIL, MUNROTHURATHU VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV ARUN BABU RESPONDENTS: 1 SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA) No-1, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691013. 2 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS AND BRIDGES DEPARTMENT, TALUK CUTCHERRY, KOLLAM-691 001. 3 MUNDROTHURATHU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, MUNDROTHURATHU, KOLLAM-691 502, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV A.JANI SRI.BIMAL K.NATH, SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
T.R. RAVI, J.
W.P.(C) No.2258 of 2022 Dated this the 08th day of November, 2022
JUDGMENT
The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.24105 of 2020 seeking disbursal of compensation to him and his wife. A claim for the said amount had been raised by the 3 rd respondent Panchayat also on the ground that the property had been surrendered to the Panchayat.
2. This Court by Ext.P7 judgment directed the 1 st respondent to hear the petitioner, his wife and the 3 rd respondent Panchayat and arrive at a decision. It was specifically said in the
order that the contention of the petitioner that the land in question
had not been surrendered by him to the Panchayat and the contra assertion of the Panchayat have also to be considered and if it is found either way, it shall be so recorded in the order that is to be passed and the balance of the compensation amount has to be disbursed accordingly. Pursuant to Ext.P7, the 1 st respondent has issued Ext.P8 order. Even though the order is very elaborate, the fact remains that the specific issue which this Court had directed
to be considered has not been considered. Instead, it is seen that a finding has been rendered by the 1 st respondent that an Anganwadi had been functioning in the property for more than 12 years and hence the petitioner has lost the right over the property by adverse possession. The 1st respondent is not expected to decide on civil rights of the parties based on adverse possession, which is essentially a function of the Court. What was directed to be considered was only the question whether on facts there is a surrender. Even though there are statements regarding the same in the order, there is no positive finding.
In such circumstances, Ext.P8 cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed. Ext.P8 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the matter as directed by this Court in Ext.P7 judgment and pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner and the 3rd respondent at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- T.R.RAVI JUDGE mpm APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2258/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE VALUATION STATEMENT PREPARED IN RESPECT TO THE APPROACH ROAD FOR PERUMON BRIDGE BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPECT TO PETITIONERS PROPERTY.
Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21.1.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 12.3.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT DATED 19.1.2021 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT HEREIN IN WP(C) 21405/2020, WITHOUT EXHIBITS. Exhibit P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 26.11.1996 BEARING NUMBDER 2160/1996 OF THEVALAKKARA SRO. Exhibit P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 6.10.2021 IN RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER. Exhibit P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.11.2021 IN WP(C) 24105/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. Exhibit P8 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BEARING NO.A3- RESPONDENT.