Allowed

V.T.Hydrose v. the Secretary, Nattika Grama Panchayat.

Kerala HC6 Mar 2007WP(C)/1960/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ against Nattika Grama Panchayat for not implementing a resolution to evict encroachers. Court directed Panchayat to issue notice and evict encroachers within 30 days, subject to absence of injunction orders, dismissing the petition itself.

What did the court decide?

Panchayat directed to implement resolution extending Ev P7 and directions in Ext.P13 within 30 days by issuing notice to encroachers.

V.T.Hydrose Vs the Secretary, Nattika Grama… — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2007 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1928

¶5

WP(C).No. 1960 of 2006(G)

PETITIONERS:

1.HYDROSE.V.T., PRESIDENT POURA SAMITHY, NATTIKA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, RESIDING AT CHANDANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHEKKARA, THALIKKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶10

*ADDL.P2.T.VENUGOPALAN, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O.UNNIRI, PRESIDENT, POURA SAMITHY, NATTIKA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, RESIDING AT THAZHATHUPURA HOUSE, CHERKARA P.O., TALIKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶11

*ADDL.P2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.14479/06 DATED 5.2.07.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.M.B.PRAJITH

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

¶15

THE SECRETARY, NATTIKA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NATTIKA P.O., VALAPPAD.

¶16

THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.

¶17

THE SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, THRISSUR.

¶18

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, THRISSUR.

¶19

R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY

¶20

SMT.N.SANTHA

¶21

SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO

¶22

R2 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANSAR

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J.

¶25

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.1960 of 2006

¶26

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 6^th March, 2007

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The grievance of the petitioner is that Ext.P7 resolution adopted by the Panchayat deciding to evict the encroachers is not being implemented by the Panchayat.

¶29

The 1^st respondent-Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit in the impleadment application while the 4^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit.

¶30

Heard both sides. It is seen from the counter affidavit filed by the 4^th respondent that some of the persons who are in occupation of the encroached area have filed suits before the Munsiff's Court, Chavakkad and that in an Adalat conducted by the Munsiff's Court a few of the suits have been settled while few of them are pending. But in none of the suits, no injunction order as such has been issued against the Panchayat and in favour of the plaintiffs in the suits. Ext.P13 order of the Ombudsman will show that the Ombudsman relied on the finding of the Deputy Director of Panchayat that the area occupied has been trespassed upon and issued a direction that the Panchayat has to take steps for recovering the encroached area. The decision which has been taken by the Panchayat in Ext.P7 is to evict the encroachers. Under these circumstances, the Writ Petition

¶31

W.P.C.No. 1960/06 - 2 -

¶32

will stand disposed of with the following directions:

¶33

The 1^st respondent will take immediate steps for implementing Ext.P7 after issuing notice to the encroachers, if no injunction orders have been issued by any competent court restraining the Panchayat from implementing Ext.P7 and the directions in Ext.P13. The Panchayat shall implement Ext.P7 and the directions in Ext.P13 within 30 days of receiving a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that hearing notice is directed to be given to the encroachers only with the objective of providing breathing time to them for vacating the premises and this will not be misunderstood as reflection on any rights which they may be claim over the property.

¶34

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

¶35

srd

V.T.Hydrose v. the Secretary, Nattika Grama Panchayat.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.T.Hydrose v. the Secretary, Nattika Grama Panchayat.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Helen Jerome Vs T.Balakrishnan

Shibu George Vs State of Kerala

Pathumma Vs the Secretary to Government

Keezhmad Grama Panchayath Vs G.Viswanadhankutty

N.Rajasekharan Nair Vs the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram

M.a.Alexander Vs the Supdt of Police