Judgments‎ > ‎Case Number‎ > ‎Writ Petition Civil‎ > ‎

W.P. (C) No. 3168 of 2012 - Girish Babu Vs. District Collector, (2012) 281 KLR 403 : 2012 (4) KHC 722

posted Dec 27, 2012, 8:33 PM by Law Kerala   [ updated Dec 27, 2012, 8:34 PM ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM


PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE 

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/21ST KARTHIKA 1934 

WP(C).No. 3168 of 2012 (S) 

-------------------------- 


PETITIONER: 

------------- 

GIRISH BABU, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. P.K. GOPALAKRISHNAN, PUNNEKKADAN HOUSE, CUSAT P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 

BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH RONY JOSE SRI.E.A.JOSE 

RESPONDENTS: 

---------------- 

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD - 682 030. 

2. THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 

3. REGISTRAR, CUSAT, COCHIN UNIVERSITY P.O., COCHIN - 682 022. 

4. THE SURVEY DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KAKKANAD - 682 030. 

5. THE RE-SURVEY SUPERINTNDENT, ERNAKULAM - 682 011. 

6. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 

R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.A.KALAM,SC,COCHIN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY R1, R2, R4 TO R6 BY STATE ATTORNEY SRI.P. VIJAYARAGHAVAN 

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3168 of 2012 (S) 


APPENDIX 


PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: 

  • EXT.P1 : PHTOSTAT COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.(ORDINARY) No.1873/08 REV DATED 03.06.2008. 
  • EXT.1(A) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF G.O.(ORDINARY) No.1873/08 REV DATED 03.06.2008. 
  • EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF REGISTRAR CUSAT TO THE RE-SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT. 
  • EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF NEWSPAPER MANGALAM DAILY RELATING TO TOTAL STATION SURVEY. 
  • EXT.P3(A) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF COPY OF PHOTOCOY OF NEWSPAPER MANGALAM DAILY RELATING TO TOTAL STATION SURVEY. 
  • EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. 
  • EXT.P4(A) : TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE DISTRICT COLLECTOR. 


/TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE 

Manjula Chellur, C.J. & A.M. Shaffique, J. 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

W.P.(C) No. 3168 OF 2012 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

Dated this the 12th day of November, 2012 

Head Note:-

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Public Interest Litigation - Writ of Mandamus - Recoup the land - Identify the missing land of CUSAT campus by proper and effective resurvey - Only difference is less than 1% of the total area and this difference is within the allowable limits - No good ground to entertain this Public Interest Litigation.

JUDGMENT 


Manjula Chellur, C.J. 


This writ petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation by the petitioner claiming to be a pro bono publico seeking following reliefs: 

"i. to identify the missing land of CUSAT campus by proper and effective resurvey, issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent 1 to 6 to recoup the land. 

ii. grant full cost to the petitioner for the institution and conduct of this writ petition. 

iii. to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding respondents 1 to 6 to take appropriate action on Exhibits P1 and P4 within a time limit to be specified by this Hon'ble Court. 

iv. mould and grand such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems just and necessary and that may be prayed for by the petitioner while hearing the W.P." 

2. The contesting respondents are 3rd and 4th respondents. The 3rd respondent is the owner of the property and the 4th respondent is the Survey Department who deals with the measurement of the lands in question. The statement of 4th respondent indicates, out of 183.36 acres of land claimed by the University as their property, the survey records indicate the extent as 178.54 acres only. However, after measurement with the assistance of modern equipment, when the actual area in possession of CUSAT came to be measured it was 182.43 acres. Therefore, the only difference is less than 1% of the total area and this difference is within the allowable limits. According to the State Attorney if another survey is conducted, this missing area also may be traced. 


3. We also find that there was acquisition of land for formation of road within the campus of the University and this would also indicate the measurement being less than the claimed measurement of the University. However, the very exercise of survey was taken up by the 4th respondent Department on the application of CUSAT indicating their desire not only for survey of the entire campus and also expressing their desire to put up a compound wall. In that view of the matter, when we go through the statement of the 3rd respondent Registrar of CUSAT, we find that necessary exercise and plan of action is indicated so far as their property is concerned. They have given all the details and more or less the stand of the University and the State is one and the same so far as the actual measurement and there is some discrepancy in the total measurement which is less than 1% of the total area. 


4. Having regard to the care and commitment of the University in protecting the property even by putting up a compound wall, we do not find any genuineness in the allegations made on behalf of the petitioner that the University is negligent and totally having no concern with regard to its property. 


5. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, no relief claimed by the petitioner can be entertained in this matter. If the petitioner has any grievance so far as the property donated by his grand father, if it is not traceable, he can approach the Survey Department for the same and ask the Department to identify the property donated by the grandfather of the petitioner. However, the petitioner does not come forward to say that he is not able to identify the 72 cents of property donated by his grandfather.


In the above circumstances, we find no good ground to entertain this Public Interest Litigation. Accordingly this Writ Petition is dismissed. 


Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice. 

A.M. Shaffique, Judge. 

ttb/12/11 



Comments