High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit Petition disposed of with directions to th...

Elizabeth Beena Belliappa v. State of Kerala and Others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO.23422/2023
Neutral Citation:/

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • VIJU ABRAHAM
Judgment Date
2024-02-07
Court Decision / Holding
Writ Petition disposed of with directions to the seventh respondent to take up Ext.P7 representation and take appropriate steps as per law, considering Exts.P1 and P2 judgments of the Apex Court, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, additional respondents, and affected parties, and finalise the proceedings within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
Final Disposition
Writ Petition disposed of with directions to the seventh respondent to consider Ext.P7 and proceed under law, guided by Exts.P1 and P2, with hearing afforded to petitioner and affected parties; finalisation within two months from receipt of the judgment copy.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • Elizabeth Beena Belliappa

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by Chief Secretary, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
  • Secretary Public Works Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
  • District Collector, Alappuzha
  • Revenue Divisional Officer, Alappuzha
  • Tahsildar Cherthala Taluk
  • Village Officer Ezhupunna
  • Executive Engineer PWD (Roads and Bridges), Cherthala
  • Station House Officer Aroor Police Station
  • Kanjirathinkal Devi Temple Committee represented by its Secretary
  • SNDP Yogam Branch No. 671 represented by Secretary

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • V.M.Krishnakumar
  • • Maya M.

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sineesh K.M. (Sineesh Madhavan)
  • • Kannezhathu Madhavan
  • • P. Sajeev (Perumpalam) (K/967/2007)
  • • Deepa V., Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

Petitioner Elizabeth Beena Belliappa, along with her sister, owns 27 cents of land in Sy.No.158/21 in Ezhupunna Village, Cherthala Taluk, abutting the old National Highway. She challenges encroachments on the public road margins abutting her property and around a tree standing in the pavement, alleging that unauthorised activities are being carried out by respondents 9 (Kanjirathinkal Devi Temple Committee) and 10 (SNDP Yogam Branch 671). Exts.P5 and P6 pictures illustrate encroachment and the construction near the petitioner's compound wall. The petitioner prays for removal of encroachments within a time limit fixed by the Court. She relies on Ext.P1, a Supreme Court order (31-01-2018) noting encroachments and directing states to formulate a comprehensive policy for removal/relocation/regularisation of unauthorised religious constructions on public streets or places, drawing on earlier 2009–2010 directives. Ext.P2 cites Jagpal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others (2011 KHC 4091), directing eviction schemes for illegal occupants. The petitioner seeks expeditious consideration of Exts.P7 and P8 and steps to evict encroachment, with hearing for affected parties, under the Apex Court directions cited. The Court ultimately disposes the matter with a directive to the seventh respondent to act under law, guided by Exts.P1 and P2, within two months.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner contends that encroachments by respondents 9 and 10 on the public road abutting her property, and around a tree near the pavement, threaten public use and safety. She relies on Supreme Court directives (Ext.P1) that unauthorised constructions on public streets or places should be removed, and on Jagpal Singh (Ext.P2) to insist on eviction schemes and prompt action. The petitioner seeks a time-bound removal/order, hearing for affected parties, and invocation of policy measures to remove/relocate/regularise encroachments. She seeks eviction of encroachers to preserve public road margins and prevent further unauthorised constructions; Ext.P7 and Ext.P8 are representations to be considered in accordance with law and prior Apex Court jurisprudence, with a view to finalising the proceedings within a short timeline.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents' advocate(s) elaborate on compliance with existing directions and emphasize the need to apply due process under law. They rely on apex Court directives (Ext.P1) and policy-making obligations identified in prior orders to address unauthorised religious constructions. The Government Pleader assists in framing a suitable response and ensuring that the authorities consider Ext.P7 in light of Exts.P1 and P2, and afford hearing to all affected parties, including the petitioner and 9th and 10th respondents. The respondents contend that the matter requires careful, lawful action and adherence to established policy on removal/relocation/regularisation of encroachments, balancing public interest and religious rights.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Jagpal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others2011 KHC 4091PositiveCited as a controlling authority for eviction schemes and speedy eviction of illegal occupants; the court directs actions in line with this precedent.
Lavkush & Ors. v. State of U.P.2016 SCC Online 394Mentioned OnlyExhibit P3 cited but not necessarily relied upon for the dispositive directions; referenced as part of petition exhibits.
Supreme Court order in SLP No. 8519/2006 (dated 31.01.2018)SLP No. 8519/2006PositiveExt.P1; the Apex Court order is invoked to underscore policy and directions against unauthorised constructions and to guide national practice.
LAVKUSH & ORS. v. STATE OF U.P.2016 SCC Online 394Mentioned OnlyRepeated as Exhibit P3; included as a supporting authority in the record but not central to the dispositive reasoning.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Elizabeth Beena Belliappa v. State of Kerala and Others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM WEDNESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945** ## **WP(C) NO. 23422 OF 2023** ## **PETITIONER:** ELIZABETH BEENA BELLIAPPA, AGED 69 YEARS D/O P A HORMIS THARAKAN, 11/2, 2ND CROSS, CHARLES CAMPBELL ROAD, BANGALORE, PIN - 560005 BY ADVS. V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR MAYA M. ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 3 DISTRICT COLLECTOR COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001 4 REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA REVENUE DIVISION OFFICE, THATHAMPALLY, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688013 5 TAHSILDAR CHERTHALA TALUK, NEAR MINI CIVIL STATION, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688524 6 VILLAGE OFFICER EZHUPUNNA VILLAGE, ERAMALLOOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688537 7 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (ROADS AND BRIDGES), CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688524 **WP(C) NO.23422/2023** **2** 8 STATION HOUSE OFFICER AROOR POLICE STATION, CHANDIROOR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688535 9 **ADDL. R9** KANJIRATHINKAL DEVI TEMPLE COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ERAMALLOOR, ALAPUZHA DIST -688537 10 **ADDL. R10** SNDP YOGAM BRANCH NO. 671 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, ERAMALLUR P.O. ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688537 (ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 9 & 10 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 02.11.2023 IN I.A.S 1/2023 AND 2/2023 RESPECTIVELY IN WP(C). BY ADVS. V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR No Advocate SINEESH K.M.(SINEESH MADHAVAN) KANNEZHATHU MADHAVAN P.SAJEEV (PERUMPALAM)(K/967/2007) DEEPA.V., GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) NO.23422/2023** **3** ## **JUDGMENT** _Dated this the 07[th] day of February, 2024_ Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to ensure that encroachments as seen in Exts.P5 and P6 photographs abutting PWD Road on one side and the petitioner's compound wall on the other side is removed, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. 2. Petitioner along with her sister own 27 cents of land in Sy.No.158/21 of Ezhupunna Village, Cherthala Taluk as evident from Ext.P4 possession certificate. The said plot is abutting the old National Highway. Petitioner submits that for the past several months encroachment into pavements/road margins of the public road abutting the petitioner's compound wall is being done and a small construction is made around a tree standing in the pavement of the road and certain religious rites are being conducted by unidentified persons. Petitioner submits that these unauthorised activities are being undertaken by respondents 9 and 10. Petitioner submits that the Apex **WP(C) NO.23422/2023** **4** Court as per Ext.P1 order dated 31.01.2018 has taken note of such encroachment over public road/puramboke and issued directions, the relevant portion of which reads as follows : “Vide order dated 16.2.2010, the following directions have been issued: In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 29th September, 2009, by which this Court directed that henceforth no unauthorised construction shall be carried out or permitted in the name of Temple, Church, Mosque or Gurudwara etc. on public streets, public parks or other public places, the affidavits of all the States and the Union Territories, except the State of Uttarakhand, have been filed. All the States and the Union Territories have taken necessary steps to ensure that no further unauthorised construction shall take place and Court's directions are seriously and meticulously complied with. The other part of the directions issued on 29th September, 2009, were that in respect of unauthorized construction of religious nature which has already taken place on public streets, public parks or other public places, the State Governments and the Union Territories were directed to review the same on case to case basis and take appropriate steps as expeditiously as possible. We do not find comprehensive and satisfactory affidavits as far as this direction of the order is concerned. Therefore, it has become imperative to direct all the States and the Union Territories to formulate comprehensive policy regarding the removal/relocation/ **WP(C) NO.23422/2023** **5** regularisation of the unauthorized construction within six weeks' from today. The policy should clearly indicate within what period the States and the Union Territories are going to fully comply with its policy to remove/relocate/regularise the unauthorized construction. We also direct all the States and the Union Territories to identify unauthorized construction of religious nature on public streets, public parks and public places within six weeks' from today. We direct the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttarakhand to file an affidavit within two weeks from today. In case the affidavit is not filed, the Chief Secretary shall remain present in Court on the next date of hearing. We also direct all the Chief Secretaries of the States and the Administrators of the Union Territories to file further comprehensive affidavits within six weeks' from today. The special leave petition is adjourned to 6th April, 2010." ## 3. Petitioner also relies on Ext.P2 judgment in **Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others** (2011 KHC 4091), the relevant paragraph of which reads as follows : “22. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorised occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/ Poramboke/ Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for **WP(C) NO.23422/2023** **6** the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/ Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularising the illegal possession. Regularisation should only be permitted in exceptional cases eg. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.” 4. Petitioner submits that she has preferred Ext.P7 representation before the seventh respondent as well as Ext.P8 representation before the fourth respondent and seeks for an expeditious consideration of Exts.P7 and P8 and consequent steps to evict the encroachment proceedings. 5. Heard the learned Government Pleader also. 6. After hearing both sides, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to the seventh respondent **WP(C) NO.23422/2023** **7** to take up Ext.P7 representation preferred by the petitioner and take appropriate steps as requested therein in accordance with law, taking into consideration Exts.P1 and P2 judgments of the Apex Court, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner/authorised representative, additional respondents 9 and 10 and any other affected parties and finalise the proceedings within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. Sd/- **VIJU ABRAHAM JUDGE** csl **WP(C) NO.23422/2023** **8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23422/2023** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SLP.NO.8519/2006 DATED 31.01.2018 Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION REPORTED IN 2011 KHC 4091 (JAGPAL SINGH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS) - Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT REPORTED IN 2016 SCC ONLINE 394 (LAVKUSH & ORS. V. STATE OF U.P.) Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 16.03.2017 - Exhibit P5 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION AROUND THE TREE ABUTTING THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND PAVEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY - Exhibit P6 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE UNUATHORISED CONSTRUCTION OF THE SHED Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16TH JANUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (PWD ROADS) Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16TH JANUARY, 2023 BEFORE THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER