Kerala High Court
Ibrahim.P.P vs State Of Kerala on 7 January, 2015
Author: A.Muhamed Mustaque
Bench: A.Muhamed Mustaque
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE
WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/17TH POUSHA, 1936
WP(C).No. 25081 of 2014 (I)
----------------------------
PETITIONERS:
-----------------------
1. IBRAHIM.P.P.,AGED 60 YEARS,
S/O PAREETH, PATHIKKAPARMBIL, VENGALLOOR.P.O.,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
2. NOUSHAD, AGED 50 YEARS,
S/O.PAREEKUTTY, VELLOOPARAMBIL, VENGALLOR.P.O,
THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS:
-----------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
COLLECTORATE, IDUKKI-673 001.
3. THE ADDL.TAHSILDAR,
THODPUZHA TALUK OFFICE, THODUPUZHA.
4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, IDUKKI.
5. THE THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,
THODUPUZHA, UDUKKI.
*ADDL.R6 IMPLEADED
*R6: THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, IDUKKI.
*ADDL.R6 IS SUO MOTU IMPLEADED VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 07/01/2015
IN WP(C).NO.25081/2014
R1 TO R4,ADDL.R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. A.LOWSY
R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.SOYUZ,THODUPUZHA MUNICIPALITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 07-01-2015,ALONG WITH COC.NO.1117 OF 2014, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 25081 of 2014 (I)
-----------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXT.P1 COPY OF THE DOCUMENT BEARING NO.2678/90 DATED 4.12.90 OF
THE THODUPUZHA S R O
EXT.P2 COPY OF THE SKETCH GIVEN BY THE TALUK OFFICE,THODUPUZHA
DATED NIL.
EXT.P3 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER TO
TAHSILDAR DATED 23.8.2014.
EXT.P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE KERALA STATE PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT DATED 13.3.09
EXT.P5 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE TAHSILDAR THODUPUZHA
TALUK OFFICE DATED 27.8.2014
EXT.P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY ONE SHINAS
BEFORE THE ADDL.TAHSILDAR,THODUPUZHA DATED 10.9.2014
EXT.P7 COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE TALUK OFFICE DATED
12.9.2014.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------------------------
EXT.R3(A) COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03/12/2014 ISSUED BY THE THIRD
RESPONDENT.
EXT.R3(B) COPY OF THE LITHO MAP PERTAINING TO THE PROPERTIES
EXT.R3(C) COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH IN RESPECT OF FIELD NO.8/2 OF
KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE.
EXT.R5(A) COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2678/90 OF THODUPUZHA SRO
EXT.R5(B) COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2679/90 OF THODUPUZHA SRO
EXT.R5(C) COPY OF RESOLUTIONS DATED 13/08/13
EXT.R5(D) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/10/2014
EXT.R5(E) COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/10/2014
sts 2/-
-2-
WP(C).NO.25081/2014
EXT.R5(F) COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ASSET REGISTER
EXT.R5(G) PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON 21/08/14
EXT.R5(H) COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.1715 OF 2014 OF THODUPUZHA
POLICE STATION
EXT.R5(I) PHOTOGRAPH TAKEN ON 28/09/4
/TRUE COPY/
P.A.TO.JUDGE
sts
A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.25081 of 2014
Contempt of Court Case (c) No.1117 of 2014
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of January,2015
J U D G M E N T
-----------------------
This writ petition pertains to the properties situated in 8/2 of the Kumaramangalam village. The petitioner submits that the above properties are revenue land. The petitioner and others are using the above land for the last several years as volly ball court. The dispute is now on account of the claim of the Thodupuzha Municipality. According to the petitioners the municipality has no land in the above survey number. The municipality seems taking steps to construct commercial building in the above land. This Court passed an order of status quo on 26.9.2014.
2. The Contempt of Court Case No.1117/2014 arises alleging violation of the status quo ordered in the writ petition by this Court. The Contempt is filed by the Municipality against the writ petitioner alleging violation of the order of statusquo. This Court as per the order dated 17.9.2014 directed the Tahsildar to W.P.(C).No.25081 of 2014 & Contempt of Court Case (c) No.1117 of 2014 2 identify the property whether this belongs to the Municipality or the Revenue.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent along with a sketch. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit itself that there are certain anomalies with respect to survey of the property claimed by the Municipality and the above property belongs to Municipality. The Tahsildar also relied on sketch. The petitioner has a case that the Tahsildar has not conducted any inspection of the property and merely produced a sketch drawn in the year 2003. Therefore, it is submitted by the petitioner that the identification of the property is inconclusive in the matter, and it requires further probe by a competent senior officer.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality would submit that the Municipality is attempting to constrcuct a commercial building based on centrally allocated fund and any W.P.(C).No.25081 of 2014 & Contempt of Court Case (c) No.1117 of 2014 3 delay will adversly affect the construction of the building.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner agrees that if a decision is taken by the Deputy Director of Survey after conducting a site inspection, they are prepared to abide by the decision of the Deputy Director. The fact remains now that the sketch produced before this Court by the 3rd respondent is of the year 2003. The 3rd respondent also found that there are certain anomalies in repect of the survey of the property claimed by the Municipality.
6. Considering the factual situation, I am of the view that the 6th respondent shall conduct survey and necessary inspection of the property and take a decision in the matter. The inspection shall be conducted in the presence of the officials of the Municipality and also after giving notice to the petitioners. Needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Till a decision is taken by the Deputy Director, the status quo W.P.(C).No.25081 of 2014 & Contempt of Court Case (c) No.1117 of 2014 4 shall be continued. In the above facts and circumstaces, I do not find that any contempt is made out against the writ petitioner Admittedly there is some anomalies in the survey. Therefore, the contempt is closed. However this will not absolve the writ petitioner from any criminal case registered against them. The Deputy Director of Survey, Idukki is suo motu impleaded as additional 6th respondent.
The writ petition and contempt case are disposed of as above.
sd/ A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE jm/