ALIYAR K.P v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR

SRI. ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA, SC, SRI. K.SANDESH RAJA, SC, SRI. SUNIL K.KURIAKOSE, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

24.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO. 2420 OF 2024 3 JUDGMENT The petitioner impugns Ext.P14 order issued by the 2nd respondent – Additional District Magistrate, whereby, he has been asked to remove certain alleged obstructions caused by him to the right of way of the party respondent through her property; and he has been ordered to do so, within a time frame to be fixed therein.

2. Sri.Amal Baby – learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently argued that Ext.P14 is improper because, what has been directed therein is effectively to allow the party respondent to use the property of his client; and therefore, that this is beyond the jurisdiction and competence of the District Magistrate. He argued that there are civil disputes pending between the parties before the competent civil courts WP(C) NO. 2420 OF 2024 4 and therefore, that the District Magistrate could not have been intervened the matter in any manner whatsoever.

3. Sri.Abraham.P.Meachinkara – learned Standing Counsel for the 5th respondent, however, submitted that, the petitioner has chosen to read Ext.P14 selectively and that it clearly records that he had removed certain slabs installed over the Canal belonging to the ‘Periyar Valley Irrigation Project’ (PVIP), as also that he had also made certain constructions next to it illegally and unauthorisedly. He submitted that, therefore, the District Magistrate was without error in having issued Ext.P14.

4. Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose - learned Government Pleader, adopted the submissions of Sri.Abraham.P.Meachinkara; adding that Ext.P14 WP(C) NO. 2420 OF 2024 5 only requires the petitioner to act as per law and that, in fact, the said order is deliberately mildly worded because, the officers decided not to pursue coercive steps against him, if he is willing to act as per the legal mandate. He added that, if, however, if this Court is not inclined to accept Ext.P14, to the extent to which it directs the petitioner to take certain action; then liberty may be reserved to the said Authority to issue appropriate orders in terms of law, adverting to the factum of encroachment by the petitioner and the removal of the slabs by him over the ‘PVIP’ Canal. He added that, during such process, any orders from the competent Civil Court can also be produced by the parties, which will certainly be adverted to and taken into account.

5. I have examined Ext.P14 and must say WP(C) NO. 2420 OF 2024 6 that I cannot find favour with the directions in it. This is because, if the factual narration therein are true, then the District Magistrate ought to have acted as per law, to deal with the noticed violations, rather than have made the directions as reflected therein.

6. Therefore, as rightly argued by Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose – learned Government Pleader, normally, when violations of the kind mentioned in Ext.P14 had been noticed, what should have followed were necessary action as per the statutory Scheme and not merely directions to the parties to act in a particular manner.

7. However, since there is a contest as to whether the facts in Ext.P14 are correct, particularly because the learned counsel for the petitioner – Sri.Amal Baby, refers to Ext.P11 to WP(C) NO. 2420 OF 2024 7 argue that the “Thodu” in question does not belong to the ‘PVIP’, I am certain that the entire matter must gain the attention of the competent Authority again. This also because, the said Authority must advert to all judicial orders covering the field, if any, before he can arrive at a conclusive decision.

8. In the afore circumstances and for the reasons above, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P14; with a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent – Additional District Magistrate to immediately hear the petitioner and the party respondent and take a decision as afore, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In the meanwhile, the District Magistrate will also be at liberty to ensure appropriate WP(C) NO. 2420 OF 2024 8 access be obtained to her property by the party respondent, by suitable means available in law. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE SAS WP(C) NO. 2420 OF 2024 9 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2420/2024 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS: Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P8-C1 Exhibit P8-C2 Exhibit P8-C3 Exhibit P9 Exhibit P10 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.3862/03 OF PUTHENCURUZ SUB REGISTRY OFFICE WITH RESPECT TO THE PURCHASE OF 8.10 ARES OF PROPERTY THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4931 /03 OF PUTHENCURUZ SUB REGISTRY OFFICE WITH RESPECT TO THE PURCHASE OF 2.35 ARES OF PROPERTY THE TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.6982/05 OF PUTHENCURUZ SUB REGISTRY OFFICE WITH RESPECT TO THE PURCHASE OF 2.30 ARES OF PROPERTY THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 23.05.23, SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF TAX FOR AN EXTENT OF 10.45 ARES THE TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 23.05.23, SHOWING THE REMITTANCE OF TAX FOR AN EXTENT OF 2.30 ARES THE TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S.159/23 FILED BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR BY THE PETITIONER THE TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR IN I.A.2/23 IN O.S.159/23 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT ALONG WITH ROUGH SKETCH FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER ADV.MANJU P, BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, PERUMBAVOOR IN I.A.NO.3/23, IN O.S.NO.159/23 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH PRODUCED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT PERUMBAVOOR THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH PRODUCED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT PERUMBAVOOR THE TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH PRODUCED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT PERUMBAVOOR THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT WITH OUT EXHIBITS THE TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN EXHIBIT P9 WRIT PETITION WP(C) NO. 2420 OF 2024 10 Exhibit P11 Exhibit P12 Exhibit P13 Exhibit P14 WITH OUT EXHIBITS THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.05.2023 GIVEN TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES DATED 13.10.23 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5.01.24