Sathyanesan v. The Revenue Divisional Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2015/18TH POUSHA, 1936 WP(C).No. 28914 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S) :- ----------------- SATHYANESAN, AGED 58 YEARS S/O JOBEL NADAR, ARUN VILASOM, AATTARIKATH VEEDU ARUVIPPURAM, MUTHUVILA P.O, KALLARA VILLAGE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADVS.SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S) :- -----------------

1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695043

2. DR. M. VIJAYADHARAN, PEARL VIEW, MGRA 23, TKD ROAD MARAPPALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004 R2 BY ADV. SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL SMT.SARITHA THOMAS SRI.N.S.SABU R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MOHAMMED SHAFI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-01-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

jvt

WP(C).No. 28914 of 2014 (L) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :- ---------------------------- EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 17-06-2013 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11-02-2014 IN CRRP NO 47/13 OF SESSIONS COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :- NIL -------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

----------------------------------------------------- W.P (C) No.28914 of 2014 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January, 2015

J U D G M E N T

Heard.

2.

The petitioner challenges Ext.P1, an order shown to be issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. That is one resulting in deprivation of property, in the sense, that it contains a direction to the petitioner to remove the sand or mud as is allegedly deposited in the land stated to be belonging to the opposite party in that proceedings. Having considered the contents of Ext.P1, I am of the view that no such administrative exercise could have been carried out by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Even if I were to think that the said officer has also exercised the powers of District Magistrate in terms of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as rightly noticed by the Court of Session in Ext.P2, the matter is purely a transaction which is civil in nature and there was no reason to interfere in criminal jurisdiction. The result of the discussion is that Ext.P1 is without jurisdiction and unsustainable. It is accordingly liable

W.P (C) No.28914 of 2014 -: 2 :- to be quashed leaving the parties to seek reliefs from appropriate authorities in accordance with law. In the result, this writ petition is allowed quashing Ext.P1 without prejudice to the contentions in other jurisdictions.

Sd/- THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE Jvt