Kerala High Court
WP(C)/41974/2017 of GOPINATHAN PILLAI Vs STATE OF KERALA on 29 December 2017
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 41974 of 2017 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------- GOPINATHAN PILLAI S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, RAJESH VIHAR, IVARKALA EAST,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017/8TH POUSHA, 1939
WP(C).No. 41974 of 2017 (V) ---------------------------- PETITIONER:
-----------
GOPINATHAN PILLAIS/O.NARAYANA PILLAI,RAJESH VIHAR, IVARKALA EAST,KUNNATHUR VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 507.
BY ADV. SMT.M.R.JAYALATHA
RESPONDENTS:------------
1. STATE OF KERALA,REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 001.
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001.
3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM,CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001.CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001.
4. THE TAHSILDAR (LR),KUNNATHUR TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001.KUNNATHUR TALUK OFFICE, KUNNATHUR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 001.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.C.VIDHYA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29-12-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:mbr/
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RDO KOLLAM DATED 17.2.2016.EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.11.2017.EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE C FORM NOTICE DATED NIL.EXHIBIT P4. A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 22.12.2017 FILED BEFORE RDO KOLLAM.EXHIBIT P5. A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE IMPUGNEDORDER DATED 22.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P6. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR KOLLAM DATED 22.12.2017.RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
mbr/
P.S. TO JUDGE
Devan Ramachandran, J.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
W.P.(C) No.41974 of 2017
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Dated this the 29[th] day of December, 2017
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The petitioner impugns the action taken by theAuthorities under the Land Conservancy Act. Thepetitioner's main challenge is against Ext.P2 order, issuedby the 4[th] respondent Tahsildar, whereby the petitioner hasbeen directed to demolish a concrete pathway constructedby him allegedly through Government property.
2. Apparently, subsequent to Ext.P2 order, Ext.P3notice has been issued to the petitioner directing him totake appropriate action as per Ext.P2. The petitioner hasimpugned Exts.P2 and P3 in an appeal filed before theRevenue Divisional Officer, the 3[rd] respondent herein. Acopy of the said appeal has been appended to this writpetition as Ext.P4 and he has also filed a petition for stay against further action as per Ext.P5. The petitioner saysthat Exts.P4 and P5 are still pending before the RDO and heprays that until such time as they are disposed of, furtheraction against him, threatened through Ext.P2 be deferred.
3. I have considered the submissions made by thelearned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thecontentions raised by the learned Government Pleaderappearing on behalf of the respondents. The learnedGovernment Pleader says that the action against thepetitioner has been done legally and that he has been issuedExt.P2 notice on 9.11.2017. According to the learnedGovernment Pleader, Exts.P2 and P3 have been issued tothe petitioner in November 2017 and she submits, oninstructions, that further action is yet to be taken on thesame. The learned Government Pleader further submitsthat nothing prevents the authorities to take appropriateaction in terms of Ext.P2 and that the mere pendency of theappeal before the RDO would not be a reason to stay such proceedings.
Procedure
proceedings.
4. I have considered the submissions made by thelearned counsel for the parties as above. Since I notice thatthe petitioner has already approached the RDO with Ext.P4appeal and Ext.P5 application for stay, it is only in thefairness of things that the said Authority dispose of Exts.P4and P5 in terms of law before further action is taken basedon Ext.P2.
5. In such circumstances, I order this writ petitiondirecting the 3[rd] respondent Revenue Divisional Officer,Kollam to take up Exts.P4 and P5 appeal and application forstay respectively, preferred by the petitioner and considerthe same and pass appropriate orders thereon. Until suchtime as the decision is communicated to the petitionereither on Ext.P5 stay petition or on Ext.P4 appeal itself, allfurther action pursuant to Exts.P2 and P3 shall standdeferred. It will be desirable that the RDO consider Ext.P4appeal itself, but if for any reason the appeal cannot be W.P.(C).41974/17 :4:
finally considered, then to take up Ext.P5 stay application and dispose of it in terms of law.
The writ petition is ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
Devan Ramachandran,Judge
okb