Disposed

Geroge Chummar v. Aloor Grama Panchayath and Others

Kerala HC3 Apr 2007WP(C)/2857/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP(C) No. 2857 of 2007 the petitioner sought production of records for a demolition order. The Court held record production unnecessary as documents were already produced but directed service of the order on the absent tenant via his counsel.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed without granting the prayer for records; Court directed service of demolition order on the tenant via his counsel.

Geroge Chummar Vs Aloor Grama Panchayath and Others — Property and Title | 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 3RD APRIL 2007 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 2857 of 2007(M)

PETITIONER:

GEORGE CUMMAR, S/O.CHUMMAR, PUTHUSSERY (H), CHOWARA P.O., PIN-683571.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

ALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, P.O.ALOOR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶14

SULAIMAN, S/O.KUNJUMON, ULLISSERY HOUSE, KALLETTUMKARA VILLAGE, KALLETTUMKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶15

KRISHNANKUTTY E.,

¶16

S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY MENON, KALLETTUMKARA VILLAGE,

¶17

KALLETTUMKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶18

R2 BY ADV. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN

¶19

& SMT.P.A.ANITHA R1 BY ADV.SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE

¶20

& SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

¶23

W.P.(C) No.2857 of 2007 M

¶24

Dated this the 3^rd day of April, 2007.

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

Mr.Renjith Thampan, who is

¶27

appearing for the 2^nd respondent, who is said to be the tenant in the building submits that the writ petition is a collusive action between the landlord and the panchayat. Mr.Renil Anto Kandamkulathy, counsel for the petitioner takes strong exception pointing out that the petitioner is not in India at all. Mr.Philip T.Varghese, counsel for the panchayat submits that the panchayat became obliged to take action when a complaint was received from the 3^rd respondent and the enquiry conducted pursuant to that complaint revealed that the building was standing in a dangerous condition. Mr.Philip T.Varghese has

¶28

W.P.(C) No.2857 of 2007

¶29

brought a photograph to show the condition of the building. He also submits that neither the petitioner nor the 2^nd respondent, who claims to be the tenant, are in India and the 2^nd respondent is not in actual physical possession of the building.

¶30

The only prayer in the writ petition is to direct the 1^st respondent panchayat to produce the records which led to the issuance of Ext.P2. Mr.Philip submits that the only record which led to the issuance of Ext.P2 demolition order was the complaint Ext.P1 and the report of the Executive Engineer, Building Division, Thrissur Ext.P2(2).

¶31

Considering the contentions addressed before me, I am of the view that it is not necessary to grant the

¶32

W.P.(C) No.2857 of 2007

¶33

relief sought for by the writ petitioner since Exts.P1 and P2(2) have already been produced by the petitioner. However, the grievance of the tenant that, being a person in actual occupation of the building, notice should have been issued on him, has some genuineness. But the stand of the Panchayat is that it will be difficult for the panchayat to serve the order on the 2^nd respondent who is allegedly not in India.

¶34

Under these circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition without granting the relief sought for by the petitioner, but directing the counsel for the panchayat to serve copies of the demolition order on the 2^nd respondent Ext.P2 on Mr.Renjith Thampan. If copies

¶35

are served on him, it will be treated as

¶36

W.P.(C) No.2857 of 2007

¶37

:: 4 ::

¶38

sufficient service on the 2^nd respondent himself. If the 2^nd respondent is aggrieved, he is free to have his statutory remedies, provided he avails

¶39

them of within three weeks from today.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

(PIUS C. KURIAKOSE) JUDGE

sk/

//true copy//

P.S. To Judge

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

¶46

----------------------------------------------

¶47

W.P.(C) No.2857 of 2007 M

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

3^rd April, 2007.

¶50

------------------------------------------------

Geroge Chummar v. Aloor Grama Panchayath and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Geroge Chummar v. Aloor Grama Panchayath and Others

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

Annamanada Grama Panchayath Vs T.D.Davis

Sadasivan R.V. Vs Thiruvankulam Grama Panchayath

R.Jacob Vs K.S.R.T.C. & Others

T.K.Narayanan Nair Vs the Special Grade Secretary

Lilly Thomas Vs State of Kerala and 3 Others

Raghuthaman Vs Kozhikode Corpn.