Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Devan Ramachandran, J
SELVARAJ – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/1569/2021
Withdrawal - Property Rights - Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act - Section 2007 - The court ruled that the impugned order was withdrawn and the right to establish easement over the property is subject to determination by a competent civil court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged an order issued by the Sub Collector concerning the easement rights of the seventh respondent. The order was later withdrawn after determining the seventh respondent had an alternative access route.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the writ petition on the basis that the order had been withdrawn, ensuring that the seventh respondent could seek his rights through the civil court.
Issues: Whether the petition challenging the withdrawn order of the Sub Collector regarding easement rights should be maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that when an order is withdrawn, the legal questions raised become moot, allowing the petitioner to field claims in civil court.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners have approached this Court impugning Ext.P7 order of the fourth respondent – Sub Collector.
2. However, when this matter was called today, the learned Senior Government Pleader – Smt.K.Amminikutty, submitted that though Ext.P7 was issued by the Sub Collector in his capacity as the Nodal OfÏcer for Protection of Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as also the Maintenance Tribunal under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act , 2007, it has been subsequently withdrawn by him, because it was found that the seventh respondent has an alternate road through the southern side of his property. She submitted that, therefore, if the seventh respondent requires his easment right over the property in question to be established, he will have to approach the competent Civil Court.
3. Since Ext.P7, which is the impugned order, has been stated as afore to have been withdrawn, I allow this writ petition, recording the same.
4. Needless to say, nothing contained in this judgment will impede or trammel the right of the seventh respondent to establish his right over the property in question - either as an easement or otherwise - through a competent Court.
It goes without saying that, consequent to my afore directions, Ext.P10 order of the District Collector, confirming Ext.P7 order, will also stand set aside.
This writ petition is thus ordered.
Sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1569/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.
1012/18 OF THE SRO, AGALI DATED
26.09.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT NO.
931/2006 OF THE SRO, AGALI DATED
10.07.2006.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
20.12.2019 OF THE SIXTH RESPONDENT VILLAGE OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED
28.12.2019 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED
13.01.2020 OF THE SIXTH RESPONDENT RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT.
EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
19.05.2020 OF THE FOURTH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED
08.06.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS.
EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION/APPEAL DATED 10.08.2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
13.11.2020 OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT.
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
