+

Kerala High Court: Plea Filed Against Water Authority Alleging Trespass, Erection Of Hoarding On Private Property

The Kerala High Court in the case Johny George v. The District Collector, Ernakulam & Ors. observed and has sought response of the local authority on the petition of a Kochi resident accusing the Water Authority of trespassing on his private property and thereon, putting up hoardings. The bench comprising of Justice Shaji P. Chaly […]

The Kerala High Court in the case Johny George v. The District Collector, Ernakulam & Ors. observed and has sought response of the local authority on the petition of a Kochi resident accusing the Water Authority of trespassing on his private property and thereon, putting up hoardings.
The bench comprising of Justice Shaji P. Chaly in the case observed and has directed the Tahsildar of Kanayannur Taluk in Ernakulam to file the report within three weeks.
In the present case, it has been claimed by the petitioner who being 53 years old to the owner in possession of 8.1 Ares of property in Poonithura Village, having absolute right and ownership over the land. Before the court, it has also been alleged that the Executive Engineer of the Kerala Water Authority (i.e., the 6th respondent) placed a notice board on his land wherein stating that it belonged to the Authority.
It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the Water Authority had illegally trespassed into his property and placed the board and has also demolished a boundary wall.
The court observed that the property was purchased by the petitioner in the year 1993, and that even at present, the petitioner accepted the land tax. The counsel appearing argued that the action of the Water Authority was thus arbitrary, illegal, and the same is against the law, and that the board had to be removed forthwith.
It has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that though land up to 1.099 hectares was being acquired in Poonithura for the purposes of a Sewage Treatment plant at Vyttila, however, the property of the petitioner was not being acquired. It was also been submitted that while the petitioner’s predecessor had 16.2 Ares (the 40 cents of land), the petitioner had purchased only 20 cents, wherein the property has not been acquired. It has also been challenged by the petitioner that how a board could thus be placed in any property which had not been acquired and which being without any authority.
The counsels, Advocates Praveen K. Joy, E.S. Saneej, T.A. Joy, M.P. Unnikrishnan, N. Abhilash, Deepu Rajagopal, and Albin Varghese appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Tags: