Kerala High Court
Subaida Abdul Rasheed vs State Of Kerala on 19 February, 1983
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
MONDAY,THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/19TH JYAISHTA, 1936
WP(C).No. 28432 of 2013 (D)
----------------------------
PETITIONERS :
-----------------------
1. SUBAIDA ABDUL RASHEED,
W/O. ABDUL RASHEED, AGED 51 YEARS, T.C 37/145,
OLD T.C 44/1762(1), PADMA NAGAR, FORT,
TRIVANDRUM.
2. RAHUMA BEEVI,
W/O. SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 56 YEARS, T.C 37/145,
OLD T.C 44/1762(1U), PADMA NAGAR, FORT,
TRIVANDRUM.
BY ADVS.SRI.R.S.KALKURA
SRI.M.S.KALESH
SMT.A.V.PRIYA
SMT.M.K.LEELAKUMARI
SRI.HARISH GOPINATH
SRI.SANIL KUNJACHAN
RESPONDENTS :
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE OFFICE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
TRIVANDRUM - 695 043.
3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
COLLECTORATE OFFICE, KUDAPPANAKUNNU,
TRIVANDRUM - 695 043.
4. THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR,
TALUK OFFICE, FORT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 043.
5. SPECIAL TAHSILDAR,
SREE PANDARAVAKA, COLLECTORATE OFFICE,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU,TRIVANDRUM - 695 043.
Msd. ..2/-
..2..
WP(C).No. 28432 of 2013 (D)
-----------------------------------------
6. CORPORATION OF TRIVANDRUM
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUSEUM JUNCTION,
TRIVANDRUM - 695 033.
7. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
FORT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 023.
R1 TO R5 & R7 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANITHA RAVEENDRAN
R6 BY SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SENIOR ADVOCATE)
ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 09-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Msd.
WP(C).No. 28432 of 2013 (D)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OR THE RECEIPT DATED 19/02/1983 ISSUED BY
THE 6TH RESPONDENT FOR THE STATIONERY SHOP RUN BY
THE PETITIONERS FOR THE YEAR 1983-1984
EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE PROFESSIONAL TAX RECEIPT DATED 09/02/1983
FOR THE YEAR 1983-84.
EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S 132/96 DATED 23/06/1997 OF
THE 3RD ADDL. MUNSIFF'S COURT, TRIVANDRUM.
EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/09/1997 IN M.C 168 OF 1997.
EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/05/1998 OF THE REVENUE
DIVISIONAL OFFICER IN M.C 168/1997.
EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR AND PLAN INDICATING HANDING OVER
OF THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS ON
02/06/1998.
EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24/12/1998 ISSUED BY
THE CORPORATION AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION.
EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 04/09/2003 IN O.S 868/1998 ON
THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, TRIVANDRUM.
EXHIBIT P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 15/11/2000 OF THE KERALA STATE
HOUSING BOARD.
EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE PETITIONER'S TEMPORARY RATION CARD
NO. 810645.
EXHIBIT P11: TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTORAL CARD OF THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P12: TRUE COPY OF THE RESIDENCE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY
THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VANCHIYOOR DATED 25/03/1999.
EXHIBIT P13(A):TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01/06/2007 ISSUED BY
THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P13(B):TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 01/06/2007 ISSUED BY
THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P14 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 02/07/2007 ISSUED BY
THE PETITIONERS TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P15: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS IN PROCEEDINGS NO. D.DIS 30034/68
DATED 17/10/1969 OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TRIVANDRUM.
Msd.
WP(C).No. 28432 of 2013 (D)
-----------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P16: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/05/2012 IN
W.P.(C)NO. 20899 OF 2007 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P17: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR
IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY IN THE POSSESSION OF
THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P18: TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN PREPARED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR
INDICATING THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P19: TRUE COPY OF THE DEMARCATION LAND REGISTER IN RESPECT OF
THE PROPERTY IN SY.NO. 683.
EXHIBIT P20: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 25/03/2013 ISSUED BY
THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
SREE PANDARAVAKA LAND BEARING NO. 573/2013.
EXHIBIT P21: TRUE COPY OF THE REVENUE LIST PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, VANCHIYOOR DATED 03/08/2012.
EXHIBIT P22: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20/10/2012 PASSED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P23: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER AS
JR. J3. 8901 OF 2013.
EXHIBIT P24: TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT DATED 10/05/2013 ISSUED
BY THE LAND REVENUE COMMISSIONER
EXHIBIT P25: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/03/2009 IN
APPEAL NO. 756 OF 2008 ON THE FILE OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL
SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, TRIVANDRUM.
EXHIBIT P26: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04/06/2013 IN C.M.P.NO. 13/2009 OF
OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,
TRIVANDRUM.
EXHIBIT P27: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FROM THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
DATED 20.09.2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:
-----------------------------------------
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE.
Msd.
A.M. Shaffique, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W.P(C) No. 28432 of 2013
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 9th day of June, 2014.
J U D G M E N T
This writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the 6th respondent in demolishing a portion of the residential building in which the petitioners are residing as illegal and for a direction to the 6th respondent to restore the demolished portion of the petitioners' residential house to its original position at their cost.
2. The facts involved in this case would disclose that the petitioners are residing in a property having an extent of 12 cents in Sy. Nos. 680 and 683 of Vanchiyoor village. The building in the property is bearing Corporation No. T.C 44/1762(1). They have made certain valuable improvements in the property and believing that the property was puramboke land they sought for assignment. According to the petitioners, residents association sought for evicting the petitioners. In the meantime, land conservancy proceedings were taken. When the petitioners challenged the said proceedings, this Court interfered with the same in W.P(C) No. 20899/2007 and directed the District Collector to pass final orders on the application for assignment and in the meantime, the land conservancy proceedings were kept in abeyance.
3. The property was measured through a Taluk W.P(C) No. 28432 of 2013 -: 2 :- Surveyor. It was found that certain extent of property in Sy. No. 680/2B was road puramboke and a pipeline was running under the said property. The 2nd respondent therefore directed eviction of the petitioners from the said property. According to the petitioners, they had preferred an appeal before the Land Revenue Commissioner, which is pending.
4. In the mean time, it is stated that the Thiruvananthapuram Citizens Protection Form filed a complaint before the 6th respondent inter alia contending that the construction made by the petitioners in the property was illegal and they requested for demolishing the structures. The local authority directed the structures to be removed, against which the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The order was set aside. According to the petitioners, on 4.11.2013, the 6th respondent with the assistance of the 7th respondent, trespassed into the property of the petitioners and demolished the house without any further notice and hence the petitioners have come up praying for the reliefs aforesaid.
5. The 6th respondent has filed a statement inter alia stating that the building referred to in Sy. No. 680 W.P(C) No. 28432 of 2013 -: 3 :- is only a shed having a plinth area of 15 meters as per assignment register kept in the office of the Corporation. Building No. TC 37/60 referred by the petitioners, which is now re-numbered as TC No. 44/1762(1) is a double storeyed building belonging to another person. It is submitted that the building constructed is without any permit or licence from the Corporation. That apart, the Collector has dismissed the application for land assignment as per Ext. P22. It is inter alia observed that the land involved is a road puramboke. The District Collector had informed the Corporation as per letter dated 16.7.2013 that the application for assignment filed by the petitioners has been rejected. That apart, the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions, by order dated 4.6.2013 has called upon the Corporation to demolish the unauthorised construction made by the petitioners in the puramboke land. It is stated that the construction made by the petitioners is unauthorised and trespassing into the road puramboke near Sreepadmanabha Swami Temple. The pipeline for cleaning the Sreepadmanabha Swami Temple pond is laid through the said land. The puramboke land forms part of the drainage road as well.
W.P(C) No. 28432 of 2013 -: 4 :-
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon Ext. P25 order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions setting aside the order dated 16.11.2008 of the Secretary, Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram under Section 406(3) of the Kerala Municipality Act.
7. But, it is relevant to note that Ext. P25 order of the Tribunal was passed on 1.3.2009 and the direction was to the 1st respondent to pass fresh proceedings in accordance with law. The Ombudsman's order at Ext. P26 is dated 4.6.2013, where the very same issue has been considered and the Ombudsman had directed the Corporation to find out what happened to the proceedings under Ext. P13. Ext. P13 was a notice issued under the Land Conservancy Act, which was interfered by the High Court. In Ext. P26 order, it was clearly mentioned that if application for assignment was turned out, then the construction made by the petitioners herein, are unauthorised and the Corporation can initiate appropriate action. Apparently, it is based on the direction so issued that the building of the petitioners had been demolished. Apparently, steps were taken by the Corporation after finalisation of the proceedings by the District Collector. W.P(C) No. 28432 of 2013 -: 5 :- Under these circumstances, I do not think that the action of the 6th respondent is in any way illegal and therefore the reliefs prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
Tds/