Partly allowed

P. Balan v. the Cherukunnu Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC3 Aug 2007WP(C)/17313/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction restraining respondents from forcibly seizing his property for road widening. Court directed respondents 1-3 not to forcibly deprive petitioner of property in possession, allowing deprivation only through lawful process.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents 1 to 3 not to forcibly deprive the petitioner of any property in his possession except in accordance with law.

P. Balan Vs the Cherukunnu Grama Panchayath — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2007 / 12TH SRAVANA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 17313 of 2007(J)

PETITIONER:

P.BALAN, S/O.KUNHAPPU, AGED 65 YEARS, VINAYAK NIVAS, ONAPARAMBU, CHIRAKKAL P.O., KANNUR- 670 001.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ SMT.SINDHU MANOJ

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE CHERUKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHERUKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE PRESIDENT, CHERUKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶15

THE VICE-PRESIDENT, CHERUKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶16

SHAJI, CHAIRMAN, SAI BABA ROAD DEVELOPMENT COMMITTE, CHERUKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶17

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNAPURAM POLICE STATION.

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR

¶19

SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW

¶20

GOVT. PLEADER SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

APPENDIX

¶23

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶24

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER RESIDENTS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 19-2-07

¶25

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF A ROUGH SKETCH OF THE LOCATION.

/True Copy/

PA to Judge.

K.M.JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C).No. 17313 OF 2007

¶31

¶32

Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2007

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Petitioner has approached this court praying for a direction to respondents 1 to 4 to refrain from forcibly seizing the property of the petitioner for road widening, except in accordance with due process of law. There is a further prayer for a direction to the first respondent to consider the grievance of the petitioner and other signatories in Ext.P1, in accordance with law, after hearing all affected parties.

¶35

Case of the petitioner in brief is that in collusion with private individuals without resorting to the process under the Land Acquisition Act respondents 1 to 4 are attempting to widen the road which has a width of approximately 3 metres.

¶36

Counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the Panchayat

¶37

wherein it is stated that the width of the road is about 4 metres.

¶38

I heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶39

There cannot be any dispute that the person cannot be

¶40

WPC No.17313/07

¶41

¶42

deprived of the property except in the manner provided in law. There will be a direction to respondents 1 to 3 that they will not forcibly deprive the petitioner of any property in his possession. Of course, it is open to the respondents to seek to deprive the petitioner of the property in accordance with law. As regards the relief against the 4^th respondent is concerned, I feel that it is open to the petitioner to seek relief against him in the appropriate forum.

¶43

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

¶44

sv.

¶45

WPC No.17313/07 3

P. Balan v. the Cherukunnu Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Balan v. the Cherukunnu Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.R.Shaju Vs the Alagappanagar Grama Panchayath

P.Sathyan Vs State of Kerala

Aleema Beevi Vs Kochi Corporation Council

The Secretary, Arpookara Grama Panchayat Vs K.Ramadevi

Indira & Another Vs Trichur District Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Madalan Ibrahim Vs the Pariyaram Grma Panchayath