Back
2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47761
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
ELIZABETH NINAN – Appellant
Versus
ANNAMMA SKARIA – Respondent
REVIEW PETITION 431/2011
The judgment emphasized adherence to legal provisions concerning public property acquisition and clarified the specific scope of previous rulings.
Headnote:
Review - Panchayat - W.P.(C) 881/2011 - The court clarified that the property related to the road widening was limited to specific survey numbers conceded by the parties, ensuring no property outside these numbers was impacted.
Fact of the Case:
The review petition was filed regarding road widening obstructed by the petitioner's property. The petitioner contested that their property was not required, relevant to specific survey numbers as per earlier judgments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that both parties conceded the property was limited to defined survey numbers, clarifying the intended scope of road widening and confirming the earlier ruling only applied to those specific areas.
Issues: Whether the road widening affects only the properties in specific survey numbers as conceded by the parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that relief granted for property removal must strictly follow the public law provisions and the specific survey numbers acknowledged by both parties.
Final Decision: The Review Petition was disposed of, affirming the earlier judgment applies only to designated survey numbers.
ORDER
The Review Petition has been filed by one of the members of the Panchayat. The grievance of the petitioner is that widening of the road in the Panchayat is not facilitated because of the obstruction stated as being caused by the unit petitioner, referring to the verdict passed by this Courtin W.P.(C) No.881/2011 holding that, if the property of the petitioner was needed for any public purpose, the same shall be taken possession of, only in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.
2. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the property of the petitioner is admittedly situated in Survey No.'597'/4 and '573'/2/3 as conceded in the Writ Petition and also as discernible from Ext.P1 title deed and Ext.P2 tax receipt. According to the review petitioner, there is no case for the writ petitioner that the latter's property is comprised in survey No.'598' and that the widening of the road is in respect of the 'Government purampoke land' comprised in survey No.'598', which in fact has no connection, whatsoever with the properties comprised in Survey Nos.'597' and '573'.
R.P No.431/2011
3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, who is the respondent herein, also fairly concedes before this Court that, the writ petitioner does not have any case as to any property covered by survey No.598 and that the relief sought for and granted as per the judgment can be confined to the property of the petitioner in survey No.597/4 and 573/2/3 since the specific case of the petitioner was that the property comprised in survey No.598 alone was required for widening of the road (with regard to which, the writ petitioner does not have any grievance to be redressed).
4. In the above circumstances, the Review Petition is disposed of, making the above position clear as conceded by the parties to the proceedings, particularly the writ petitioner that, the benefit granted by virtue of the judgment dated 06-04-2011 in W.P.(C) 8812/2011 will stand in tact with reference to the property of the petitioner comprised in survey Nos.597/4 and 573/2/3 of Mallapuzhassery village and not with reference to the property covered by survey No.598.
vdv P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE
