IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 28046 of 2007(L)
1. CHANDY K.PHILIP, AGED 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE MATHEW
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :30/06/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
----------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 28046 of 2007
----------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of June , 2008
JUDGMENT
The grievance of the petitioner is that on property having an
extent of 1.16 acres which belongs to him absolutely by virtue of
Ext.P3 document, the respondents are attempting to put up a structure
illegally. The adjoining properties were acquired by the Government for
tourism purposes. But, as far as the properties covered by Ext.P3
are concerned, no proceedings for acquisition have been initiated. But
the Government is trespassing into the petitioner’s property by
putting up structure.
2. The learned Government Pleader on the basis of the
instructions received by him from the District Collector submits that as
per the re-survey records, the property claimed by the Government is
a Kayal Puramboke. According to the Government Pleader, it is well
within the powers of the Government to exercise acts of ownership
and possession over Kayal puramboke which belongs to the
Government.
3. I do not propose to settle the controversies between the
WPC No.28046/2007 2
parties now. But since it is seen that Ext.P5 representation has been
submitted by the petitioner before the District Collector, it is only
appropriate that the District Collector hears the petitioner on Ext.P5
and takes a decision regarding the petitioner’s claim over the property
covered by Ext.P3. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of issuing
the following directions;
The second respondent is directed to take up Ext.P5 immediately
issue hearing notice to the petitioner, hear the petitioner or his
authorized representative and take a correct decision on Ext.P5 in the
light of whatever documents are produced by the petitioner before the
District Collector including Ext.P3. Decision as directed above will be
taken by the second respondent at the earliest and at any rate within
six weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment. Till such time decision
as directed above is taken, the order of stay against dispossession
issued by this court will continue.
PIUS C. KURIAKOSE
JUDGE
dpk