Kerala High Court
K.A. Varghese vs State Of Kerala on 3 August, 2017
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2017/12TH SRAVANA, 1939
WP(C).No. 23600 of 2011 (Y)
----------------------------
PETITIONER :
----------
K.A. VARGHESE, KONGALATH HOUSE,
PALLIAKKARA, THIRUVALLA - 689 101.
BY ADVS.SRI.ARUN THOMAS
SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN
SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW
RESPONDENTS :
-----------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-688001.
3. THE TAHSILDAR, CHANGANASSERY-689121.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, CHANGANASSERY-689121.
5. N. KAMALAMMA, RESIDING IN
RE. SY. NO. 204/11, CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE,
PANACHIKAVU.P.O, VIA PERUNNA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-688001.
6. NADESAN, RESIDING, RE. SY. NO. 204/10,
CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE,, PANACHIKAVU.P.O,
VIA PERUNNA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-688001.
7. ANIYAN, RESIDING IN RE. SY. NO. 204/8,
CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE, PANACHIKAVU.P.O,
VIA PERUNNA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-688001
WP(C).No. 23600 of 2011 (Y)
----------------------------
8. PENNAMMA CHELLAPPAN RESIDING IN
RE. SY. NO. 204/7, CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE,
PANACHIKAVU.P.O, VIA PERUNNA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-688001
9. PRAKASAN, RESIDING IN
RE SY. NO. 204/6, CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE,
PANACHIKAVU.P.O, VIA PERUNNA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-688001
10. MOHANAN, RESIDING IN
RE SY. NO. 204/5, CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE,
PANACHIKAVU.P.O, VIA PERUNNA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-688001
11. KRISHNAN SREEDHARAN, RESIDING IN
RE SY. NO. 204/15, CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE,
PANACHIKAVU.P.O, VIA PERUNNA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-688001
12. ANTONY THOMAS, RESIDING IN
RE SY. NO. 204/6, CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE,
PANACHIKAVU.P.O, VIA PERUNNA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-688001
13. BABU, RESIDING IN RE SY. NO. 204/5,
CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE,, PANACHIKAVU.P.O,
VIA PERUNNA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
14. KOCHUMON, RESIDING IN
RE SY. NO. 204/3, CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE,
PANACHIKAVU.P.O, VIA PERUNNA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-688001
15. ANTONY THOMAS, SHOP OWNER,
RE SY. NO. 204/6, CHANGANASSERY VILLAGE,
PANACHIKAVU.P.O, VIA PERUNNA,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-688001
R1 TO R4 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RON BASIAN
R5 TO R9,R11 TO R13 BY ADV. SRI.JINU JOSE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 03-08-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 23600 of 2011 (Y)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :
---------------------
P1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM
DT 5/3/2007.
P2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM
DT 7/6/2007.
P3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE
TAHSILDAR, CHANGANACHERRY DT 28/12/2010.
P4: COPY OF THE LETTER DT 6/1/2011 SENT TO THE
DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOTTAYAM ALONG WITH COPY OF
THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE TAHSILDAR,
CHANGANANCHERRY.
P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC N.6148/2011 OF THIS
HONOURABLE COURT.
P6: COPY OF THE REPORT DT 25/4/2011 OF THE R3
P7: COPY OF THE REPORT DT 11/5/2011 OF THE RE.
P7(a): COPY OF THE SKETCH PRODUCED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT
P7 REPORT BY RE.
P8: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E11-12549/2011 DT
27/5/2011 OF THE R2, DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
KOTTAYAM
P9: COPY OF THE RE SURVEY SKETC.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :
---------------------
EXT.R5(a): COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DT
17/11/1997
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
bp
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
**********************************************************************
W.P.(C) No.23600 of 2011
**********************************************************************
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2017
JUDGMENT
The petitioner approached the District Collector complaining encroachment of Alappuzha-Changanassery road. The petitioner has approached this Court aggrieved by Ext.P8 order of the District Collector. As seen from the decision of the District Collector and the document produced by Ext.R5, possession certificates were given to encroachers. But no patta has been issued in the matter. The petitioner submits that on account of encroachment, he is unable to take the vehicles through his property which is lying on the side of the encroached area. It appears that consequent upon the encroachment, the width of the road leading to the land is reduced by one metre. The petitioner claims that he is cultivating paddy in his land. It is to be noted, all the persons now found in possession were given the possession certificates. This Court is not called to decide on an issue relating to the issuance of possession certificate. In the possession certificate, the area of each of the occupant is referred. Therefore, the only question, in W.P.(C) No.23600 of 2011 2 such case is whether any of them who were given possession certificate is in occupation of excess land. This could be determined by measuring the land based on the details given in the possession certificate. As seen from Ext.P7, many of them are in occupation in excess of the land as referred in the possession certificate.
In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the District Collector shall reconsider the matter. The District Collector shall decide whether over and above the possession certificate, the holders of such possession certificate can be permitted to occupy the puramboke land. It appears that all these persons are poor agricultural labourers. In fact, they have encroached upon the puramboke area, that too on a side of the main important road between the Alappuzha-Changanassery road. The District Collector also shall consider assigning the land to them for putting up residential buildings by including the Zero Land Less Scheme. The District Collector shall also find out whether the same persons, who were given possession certificate are in occupation or not. Every endeavour effort also shall be made to provide vehicular access to the petitioner's property. It is to be noted that W.P.(C) No.23600 of 2011 3 the petitioner is an agriculturist and he is cultivating paddy in his land. Therefore, it is necessary for him to take the vehicle to this land. With all these aspects kept in mind, the District Collector shall reconsider the matter afresh after hearing all parties and take a fresh decision, without any delay, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The impugned order, accordingly, is set aside.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln