RAJAN v. STATE OF KERALA
Case at a glance
- Bench
- VIJU ABRAHAM
Outcome
Disposed of
Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. A perusal of Ext.P2 reveals that the extent of property that has been encroached upon by the petitioner has not been stated and I am of the view that this would disentitle the petitioner in filing a proper reply. Therefore, I am inclined to…
Judgment
BY ADV.SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR, STANDING COUNSEL SRI.AJITH VISWANATHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
08.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC)NO.4884/2024 2 JUDGMENT Dated this the 08th day of February, 2024 Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 notice dated 19.10.2023 and seeks for a direction to respondents 2 to 4 not to take any action against the property of the petitioner without complying statutory requirement contemplated under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1959 and the Kerala Highway Protection Act, 1999 and also to issue notice and to hear him before taking any action against his property.
Petitioner submits that he is in the ownership and possession of 5.587 cents of property in Sy.Nos.110/2 and 110/4 of Pottasseri I Village, Mannarkkad Taluk obtained as per sale deed No.2210 of 2003 of SRO, Mannarkkad. As part of the road widening going on, a measurement of the road has been taken during last month. The same was without any notice to the petitioner about the survey being carried out as part of the road widening. Thereafter the petitioner was issued with Ext.P2 notice wherein he was directed to remove the encroachment, failing which WPC)NO.4884/2024 3 necessary steps will be taken by the department to remove the obstruction at the expenses of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that no notice of survey has been given to the petitioner before issuing Ext.P2. Petitioner submits that in similar circumstances this Court has interfered and issued Ext.P3 judgment dated 18.12.2023.
Heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the fourth respondent.
Operative part
A perusal of Ext.P2 reveals that the extent of property that has been encroached upon by the petitioner has not been stated and I am of the view that this would disentitle the petitioner in filing a proper reply. Therefore, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition setting aside Ext.P2 notice with a consequential direction to the fourth respondent to issue a proper notice to the petitioner showing the extent of property that has been encroached upon by the petitioner and in strict compliance of section 15 of the Kerala High Way Protection Act, 1999 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and after considering the objection submitted by the petitioner and after giving an opportunity of being WPC)NO.4884/2024 4 heard. The decision on the proceedings shall be communicated to the petitioner. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE WPC)NO.4884/2024 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4884/2024 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit P3 LAND TAX RECEIPT DT 22/05/2023 ISSUED FROM POTTASSERY NO.1 VILLAGE OFFICE NOTTICE DT 19/10/2023 BEARING NO 4219/2017/RD/PU4(2) AND ISSUED BY 4TH RESPONDENT JUDGMENT IN WP ( C ) 42518/2023 DT 18/12/2023 BY HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1959; Kerala Highway Protection Act, 1999; Kerala High Way Protection Act, 1999 — s. 15.
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.