Back
S.MANIKUMAR, SHAJI P.CHALY
Roy Abraham, S/o. N. I. Abraham – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
Key Points: - The Court held that when a property owner free-surrenders property and the Municipality takes possession, the Municipality becomes the owner in possession, and entering the asset/road register constitutes conferment of rights in the Municipality, not to be restored to the owner under any circumstances (!) (!) (!) . - Section 214 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 and Rule 3 of the Kerala Municipality (Acquisition and Disposal of Property) Rules, 2000 permit acquisition by purchase or private surrender, and make clear the Municipality may acquire immovable property through free surrender with vesting in the Municipality upon fulfilment of formalities (!) (!) (!) . - The petitioner's challenge to the validity of free surrender as a basis for ownership was rejected; the Court relied on prior judgments confirming that unconditional surrender, once accepted by the Municipality and entered in asset registers, vests rights in the Municipality and prevents restoration to owners (!) (!) (!) . - The Government notification exempting stamp duty and registration fees for land registered in favor of the Municipality does not alter the fundamental consequence of surrender and vesting under the Act and Rules (!) . - The Court directed maintenance and asset register preparation to be carried out in accordance with Section 214 and related provisions, and indicated that actions to authorise or direct Panchayats, Municipalities, and Corporations to maintain asset registers should be taken, though in this case the reliefs sought could not be granted (!) (!) . - The writ petition was dismissed, with no interference in Ext. P11 (Municipal Council decision) as to maintenance of roads, implying upheld municipal decisions to proceed with road works on assets registered as municipal property (!) (!) . - The decision relies on the principle that surrender of roads for public use, followed by municipal acquisition and asset registration, constitutes dedication of the land for public use and transfer of ownership rights to the Municipality, not subject to restoration to the owner (!) (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
This is a Public Interest Litigation filed by the former Chairman of the Koothattukulam Municipality, Ernakulam District-5th respondent. According to him, he is a social worker and a public spirited person.
2. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner is that a number of mud roads open on both sides used by the general public are not maintained due to the paucity of funds, by the Municipality. Further case of the petitioner is that the funds were misused for concreting and maintenance of the private roads being influenced by interested persons and that certain private owners, who wanted to get their private roads either tarred or concreted, influenced the Councilors and on understanding got requests from the owners and on the basis of the same, the road will be included in the asset register of the Municipality illegally and after that tarring or concreting is being done.
3. Further, it is contended that the private owners are paying land tax on the property and they will not allow others to draw electric lines and pipelines through that road and even not allow others to use that road. The sum and substance of the contention advanced is that since it is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
