Rajesh Kumar K vs State Of Kerala

Shaji P.Chaly, J

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs:-

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction, directing the respondents to undertake the renovation/improvements of the road from Puthoor Bethany Junction to Alaykkal Junction in the Kottarakkara – Sasthamkotta Road and identify the actual extent and width of the road as per Exts.P1 to P5 survey sketches;

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction, directing the respondents to take appropriate actions to remove all encroachments in the extent of road from Puthoor Bethany Junction to Alaykkal Junction in the Kottarakkara – Sasthamkotta Road as per Exts.P1 to P5 survey sketches;

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction, directing the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P8 representation and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners;

iv) Issue a writ of mandamus or such other writ or direction, directing the respondents to keep in abeyance all further proceedings in relation to the renovation/improvement of the extent of road from Puthoor Bethany Junction to Alaykkal Junction in the Kottarakkara – Sasthamkotta Road, till the disposal of Exts.P7 and P8 representations by the 2nd respondent;

v) Dispense with the filing of true English translation of Exhibits which are in vernacular language;

vi) Grant such other and incidental reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and necessary on the facts and circumstances of this case;

and

vii) Allow this writ petition (civil) with costs to the petitioner.”

According to the petitioners, there are various encroachments to the PWD property from Puthoor Bethany Junction to Alaykkal Junction in the Kottarakkara – Sasthamkotta Road, and the respondents, without demarcating the width identified in the Re-survey and without removing the encroachers in the existing road, proceeded to renovate the road. It is also submitted that even though a representation was submitted before the District Collector and others to ventilate the said grievance, no action was initiated, which persuaded the petitioners to approach this Court by filing this writ petition. Petitioners therefore seeks direction for removal of the encroachments to the PWD property by various parties.

A statement is filed for an on behalf of the 6th respondent, wherein it is stated that, the road work started after removing the encroachments by the side of the road except two encroachments, against which, suits are pending before the Munsiff Court, Kottarakkara, against the eviction.

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, still there are encroachments and therefore, the respondents may be directed to consider Ext.P8 representation submitted by the petitioners.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners Smt. Kalliyani Krishna, and the learned Senior Government Pleader Smt. Reshmi K.M., and perused the pleadings and material on record.

Since, in the statement filed before this Court by the respondents, it is stated that the entire encroachments except two were removed and thereafter only, road work started; in my considered opinion, which if disputed, the factual circumstance can only be deciphered by a fact finding body. Anyhow, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners would be satisfied if a direction is issued to consider Ext.P8.

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, leaving open the liberty of the petitioners to point out any further encroachments in the road in question and if any such encroachments are pointed out except two mentioned in the statement filed before this Court, the competent among the respondents may take necessary steps to evict the encroachers and proceed with the road work accordingly.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.