VIJAYAKUMAR K.S. KONDOOKUNNEL HOUSE, VILLANCHIRA, MANNARAKKAYAM, KANJIRAPPILLY & ORS. Vs. STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W.P.(C) No. 3720/2016 is filed by one Vijaya Kumar and two others, against the District Collector and other Revenue officials as well as persons who had allegedly encroached puramboke land. W.P.(C) No.25063/2016 is filed by Mirsha Khan (8th respondent in W.P.(C) No. 3720/2016) seeking police protection against the threats held out by the 6th respondent-Vijaya Kumar (1st petitioner in W.P.(C) 3720/2016) and his men. While, W.A.No.729/2018 is filed by the above mentioned Vijayakumar (1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No.3720/2016 and 8th respondent in W.P.(C) No.25063/2016) before this Court challenging the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.29704/2013 dated 11-11-2015 in which there was a specific direction to the District Collector to reconsider the application filed by Mirsha Khan for cutting open a pathway to his property.

(2.) The facts in W.P.(C) No.3720/2016 filed by Vijaya Kumar and two others, in brief are thus:

(3.) The brief facts in W.P.(C) No.25063/2016 are thus: The petitioner-Mirsha Khan is the owner of 40 cents of land in Sy.No.257 of Chirakkadavu Village in Kanjirappally Taluk purchased as per sale deed No.1428/2013. It adjoins a Government puramboke land on the east, lying between his property and the Kanjirappally-Manimala Road. There was a proposal to start a Fire Station in the aforesaid puramboke land. The petitioner filed application on 19-06-2013 requesting the District Collector, Kottayam to form a pathway, having a width of 3 meters and length of 5 meters, through the aforesaid puramboke land starting from Kanjirappally-Manimala Road and reaching upto his 40 cents of land for ingress and egress to that property. The request was rejected as per proceedings of the District Collector dated 22-10-2013, holding that the petitioner has access through property abutting the Highway. The petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.29704/2013 before this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the aforesaid proceedings of the District Collector and also for a writ of mandamus to direct respondents therein, namely, the District Collector, Tahsildar, Village Officer, Assistant Executive Engineer and the State of Kerala to permit the petitioner to have vehicular access to his property, mentioned in his sale deed and to reconsider his request, made before the District Collector. On considering W.P.(C) No. 29704/2013, the learned Single Judge of this Court, as per Ext.P1, directed the District Collector to take appropriate decision in the matter after adverting to the report of the Tahsildar, within a period of three months from the date of the judgment and the impugned order of the District Collector rejecting the application of the petitioner, was set aside. The District Collector was directed to obtain a sketch from the Tahsildar pointing out the feasibility of the road. It was also held that if the District Collector is competent to assign the land, the District Collector shall forward his request to the Government. In compliance with Ext.P1 judgment, the District Collector allowed the petitioner to construct a road as requested in his application through the southern most portion of the puramboke land. The Taluk Surveyor prepared Ext.P2 sketch, and Ext.P3 proceedings was issued by the District Collector on 10-02-2016. On coming to know about the plans of the 6th respondent-Vijaya Kumar to obstruct the construction of road, the petitioner filed a petition before the Tahsildar for police protection and the Tahsildar directed the 3rd respondent-C.I. of Police, Poonkunnam to give adequate protection to the petitioner for constructing the road and the 5th respondent-Village Officer may be directed to go to the place and measure and demarcate the road as per Ext.P4 proceedings of the Tahsildar. When the petitioner came to the plot together with the Village Officer and two police constables on 18-03-2016, the respondent-Vijaya Kumar and his henchmen obstructed them. He filed W.P.(C) No.3720/2016 before this Court and obtained an interim order on 01-02-2016, which reads as thus: