IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8973 of 2010(V)
1. KOYAKUTTY NAZAR, KUTTIYIL MULLA VEEDU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY (SPECIAL GRADE)
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.KRISHNA MANI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :24/03/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).8973/2010
--------------------
Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner challenges Ext.P8. The facts of the case are that
Ext.P1 notice was issued to the petitioner on 10.9.2009
informing that he has stored rocks on the puramboke land
causing obstruction and therefore, he should remove the
obstruction. That issue finally reached this Court in W.P.(C).
27383/2009, which was disposed of Ext.P5 judgment directing
that Ext.P1 will be treated as a notice and it will be open to the
petitioner to show cause against the notice and the respondent
was directed to consider the matter in the light of the
documents and to pass a reasoned order. It was also made
clear that if aggrieved, petitioner can seek statutory remedies.
2. In the light of the directions in Ext.P5 judgment, petitioner
filed Ext.P6 objection to Ext.P1. Based on the above, by Ext.P7,
he was called for a hearing and to produce documents before the
respondents. According to the petitioner, availing of the
opportunity thus extended to him, he appeared before the
respondent, produced Exts.P2 and P3 judgments and contended
W.P.(C).8973/10
2
that rocks have been kept in the private property belonging to
the petitioner. It would appear that the Secretary got the
property surveyed by Tahsildar, Karunagappally, who gave a
report to the effect that the rocks have been kept in the
puramboke land. Based on the above, the Secretary passed
Ext.P8 order dated 8.3.2010, concluding that rocks have been
kept in the puramboke land over which the petitioner has no
right and that therefore, the rocks should be removed. It is
challenging Ext.P8 the writ petition is filed.
3. In the nature of the controversy, what is required to be
decided is whether the area where the rocks have been stored by
the petitioner is a puramboke land or whether the property
covered by his title deed. In my view, this can be ascertained
only by the fact finding authority with the help of the Taluk
Surveyor and referring to the documents relied on by the
petitioner as well. Such an exercise cannot be undertaken in a
writ petition and therefore, the remedy available to the
petitioner is to file an appeal against Ext.P8.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he has
W.P.(C).8973/10
3
not been served a copy of the report obtained by the Secretary
from the Tahsildar, Karunagappally. Taking into account the
aforesaid complaint, I direct that on production of a copy of this
judgment, respondent shall furnish a copy of the report filed by
the Tahsildar, Karunagappally, and it will be open to the
petitioner to seek his appellate remedy against the impugned
order.
5. In order to enable the petitioner to move the appellate
authority and to obtain appropriate interim orders, it is directed
that status quo as on date shall be maintained for a period of two
weeks from today.
6. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before the
respondent forthwith.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge
mrcs