Skip to content


K.V.Mustafa Vs. Ramanattukara Grama Panchayat - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKerala High Court
Decided On
Judge
AppellantK.V.Mustafa
RespondentRamanattukara Grama Panchayat
Excerpt:
.....to demolish the storeroom by ext.p3, which is now confirmed by ext.p6.3. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent panchayat and the learned counsel for the contesting respondent.4. the stand taken by the respondent panchayat is that it was on account of the complaint preferred by the 2nd respondent that they have taken action against the petitioner as the construction was made without obtaining permission from the panchayat.5. however, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is subsequent change in w.p.(c) no. 13696 of 2011 ..3.. circumstance, which he can bring to the notice of the 1st respondent panchayat with a proper representation. therefore, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to.....
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI WEDNESDAY, THE12H DAY OF FEBRUARY201423RD MAGHA, 1935 WP(C).No. 13696 of 2011 (J) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------- K.V.MUSTHAFA, AGED56YEARS, S/O.KUNHIMOOSS, NAFEES MANZIL, FEROKE COLLEGE ROAD RAMANATTUKARA.P.O, RAMANATTUKARA. BY ADVS.SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. RAMANATTUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RAMANATTUKARA.P.O, PIN-673633, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. SHRI.BAIJU,DEVANGANAM,FEROKE COLLEGE ROAD, RAMANATTUKARA.P.O, PIN-673633. R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN R1 BY ADV. SMT.GEETHA P.MENON R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SUBRAMANYAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON1202-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 13696 of 2011 (J) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER'(S) EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE REPLY DATED1409.2010 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE1T RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED0912.2010 VIDE NO.A3/7337/10 ISSUED BY THE1T RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PANCHAYATH ON1801.2011. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE APPEAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS DATED311.2011. EXT.P6 COPY OF THE ORDER

DATED3003.2011 IN APPEAL NO.84/2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS. RESPONDENT'(S) EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a) COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE OVERSEER DATED0608.2010. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE BKA A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

-------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 13696 of 2011 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of February, 2014

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the action initiated by the respondent Panchayat for demolishing an existing shop room in the residential property of the petitioner, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

2. The petitioner alleges that he is having 10.5 cents of property purchased in the year 2007, where he constructed a new residential building. According to him, when he purchased the property, there was a residential building with a storeroom with attached toilet on the eastern side and; to avoid inconvenience to his neighbour, the petitioner removed the toilet attached to the storeroom while constructing the new house and; that portion is now used for the purpose of washing. In the year 2010, a dispute arose between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent with regard to increasing the height of the W.P.(C) No. 13696 of 2011 ..2.. compound wall on the eastern side and; the same was settled in mediation of the Standing Committee Chairman of the 1st respondent Panchayat, which was intimated to the 1st respondent as per Ext.P2. The petitioner alleges that in spite of the aforesaid mediation, now, the respondent Panchayat had issued notice asking the petitioner to demolish the storeroom by Ext.P3, which is now confirmed by Ext.P6.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent Panchayat and the learned counsel for the contesting respondent.

4. The stand taken by the respondent Panchayat is that it was on account of the complaint preferred by the 2nd respondent that they have taken action against the petitioner as the construction was made without obtaining permission from the Panchayat.

5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is subsequent change in W.P.(C) No. 13696 of 2011 ..3.. circumstance, which he can bring to the notice of the 1st respondent Panchayat with a proper representation. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prefer a representation before the respondent Panchayat within a period of one month from today pointing out the change in circumstance. On receipt of the representation, the respondent Panchayat shall consider and pass appropriate orders after affording the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent an opportunity of being heard. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of filing the representation. Till that, the existing state of affairs shall continue. Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE bka/-


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //