C.H.ABOOBACKER v. THE COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUEGOVERNMENT OF KERALA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Since the complaint in this original petition is mainlyregarding the obstruction offered by respondents 4 and 5 to thepathway which was available through the assigned land and asrespondents 1 and 2 have both ordered that the assignee has noright to obstruct the pathway, the original petition is disposed ofdirecting that in the event there is any obstruction caused to thepathway in question, it wil
Judgment
Operative part
OP 9188/01:2 :through the puramboke land in question. It is stated that since theconditions of assignment, a translated copy of which is produced inthis original petition as Extd.P2(a) and (b), provides for exclusionfrom assignment any right of way in the assigned land, the 2ndrespondent held that the assignee is bound to maintain pathwaythrough the land. On that basis, the 2nd respondent ordered thatthe assignees shall restore the pathway and maintain the same. 3. It would appear that the 5th respondent who got theassigned property transferred in his favour way back in 1991, fileda revision before the 1st respondent and Ext.P4 order has beenissued by the 1st respondent. In Ext.P4, the 1st respondent held thatobstruction to the pathway by itself can be no reason to cancel theassignment, but however ordered that the pathway should berestored and maintained. Petitioner submits that despite all this, the obstruction created initially by respondent No. 4 and continuedby respondent No.5 still continues and complaining of suchobstruction, he filed Ext.P5 before the 2nd respondent. It is statedthat the 2nd respondent did not take any action to remedy thesituation and with that complaint the original petition was filed. 4. As regards the removal of obstruction is concerned, a OP 9188/01:3 :reading of Exts.P3 and P4, appellate order and the revisional ordershow that respondents 1 and 2 are unanimous in their view. According to both the aforesaid respondents, the assignee has noright to obstruct the right of way available through the land andtherefore the assignee was bound to maintain the same. A readingof Ext.P3 also discloses that the only access that the petitioner hadwas through the pathway available in the land referred to above. 5. Since the complaint in this original petition is mainlyregarding the obstruction offered by respondents 4 and 5 to thepathway which was available through the assigned land and asrespondents 1 and 2 have both ordered that the assignee has noright to obstruct the pathway, the original petition is disposed ofdirecting that in the event there is any obstruction caused to thepathway in question, it will be open to the petitioner to approachthe 1st respondent, who thereupon shall take necessary action forits removal as ordered in Exts.P2 and P3.ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGERp
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Since the complaint in this original petition is mainlyregarding the obstruction offered by respondents 4 and 5 to thepathway which was available through the assigned land and asrespondents 1 and 2 have both ordered that the assignee has noright to obstruct the pathway, the original petition is disposed ofdirecting that in the event there is any obstruction caused to thepathway in question, it wil
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 25 May 2009. The bench was ANTONY DOMINIC, RUE COPY P A JUDGETSS ANTONY DOMINIC.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.