SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 21466

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
K K JAYIJITH – Appellant
Versus
THE ESTATE MANAGER    Advocate - R T PRADEEP ,R T PRADEEP – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 5221/2014



The necessity for a fair hearing in administrative proceedings regarding property rights is essential before making enforcement decisions.

Headnote:

Property - Unauthorized Construction - Writ Petition - N/A - The court examined the legality of unauthorized constructions on property allocated to the petitioner, emphasizing proper procedure for resolution and the necessity of proper hearings.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner claimed unauthorized constructions on their property and sought action against the encroachers. The respondents stated that the property was not utilized by the petitioner as intended and had been transferred to another person.

Issues: Whether unauthorized constructions on the petitioner's property warranted action by the respondents and whether proper legal procedures were followed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the competent authority must consider the petitioner's responses and conduct hearings before reaching a decision regarding the property.

Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with directions for the competent authority to finalize proceedings within two months.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers:

“i) The respondents may be commanded to take action for causing unauthorized constructions to be dismantled by the encroachers themselves and protect the plot of the petitioner;

ii) Grant such other reliefs, as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the interest of justice, including costs.”

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is stated as aggrieved of the steps being taken by the respondent, who received the property, which was originally allotted to the petitioner way back in the year 2008, as per Ext.P1.

3. The case of the petitioner is that, some strangers have encroached in to the property of the petitioner and they are effecting unauthorised constructions, which is sought to be intercepted by filing this writ petition.

4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the version of the petitioner does not W.P.C.No.5221 OF 2014 2 keep the right track of truth. It is stated that the concerned plot/ premise was allotted to the petitioner for running an Electroplating Unit, but the same was not utilised by the petitioner for running the Unit and he consciously gave it to a person by name Sony, who made use of the premises for starting an Engineering industrial unit.

5. On coming to know about the factual situation, Ext.P3 notice was issued to the petitioner, asking to explain the position. Since no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming, the premises were ordered to be resumed and Ext.P6 resumption notice was issued to the petitioner on 15.10.2013. On receipt of the same, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 reply and that the matter is still to be finalised.

6. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the proceedings will be finalised only after considering Ext.P7, also with notice to the person by name Sony, to whom the premises were transferred by the petitioner.

After hearing both the sides, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2nd respondent/competent authority to consider W.P.C.No.5221 OF 2014 3 Ext.P7 filed in response to Ext.P6, and finalise the proceedings after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also to the person by name Sony, to whom the premises are stated as handed over by the petitioner. The proceedings as above shall be finalised, by passing appropriate orders in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of.

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the 2nd respondent, for further steps.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE sp

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top