Allowed

John Michael v. the Pallivasal Grama Panchayath and Othe

Kerala HC12 Mar 2007WP(C)/5971/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed a writ petition where the Court found no reason for Revenue Divisional Officer and Village Officer to interfere with the petitioner's construction of a tourist resort based on a panchayat's no objection certificate, permitting construction at the petitioner's risk.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to complete construction of the Maria Cliff Resort; future proceedings by respondents may proceed on valid grounds.

John Michael Vs the Pallivasal Grama… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2007 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1928

¶5

WP(C).No. 5971 of 2007(J)

PETITIONER:

JOHN MICHAEL, THAIKKOTTATHIL, MEENKETTU, CHITHIRAPURAM, PALLIVASAL VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE PALLIVASAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PALLIVASAL, CHITHIRAPURAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT.

¶14

THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, DEVIKULAM.

¶15

THE TAHSILDAR DEVIKULAM.

¶16

THE VILLAGE OFFICER, PALLIVASALA VILLAGE CHITHIRAPURAM.

¶17

BY G.P. SMT.T.B.RAMANI

¶18

BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.

¶21

W.P.(C)NO. 5971 of 2007

¶22

Dated this 12^th day of March, 2007

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The grievance, which is voiced by the petitioner, is that though construction of a Tourist Resort by name Maria Cliff Resorts was taken up by him on 2 Acres and 25 cents of property in Resurvey No.15. 165/1-3 of Pallivasal Village on the basis of a no objection certificate issued by the first respondent panchayat, respondents 2 and 4 viz. RDO and the Village Officer respectively are without any reasonable cause interfering with the construction and preventing him from carrying out the construction. Even though more than one opportunity was given to the Government Pleader for seeking instruction from respondents 2 and 3, she has not been able to get instructions so far.

¶25

Heard both sides. Considered the documents placed on record by the petitioner. I do not find any reason presently as to why respondents 2 and 4 should interfere in the matter of

¶26

WPC No. 5971/2007

¶27

¶28

carrying out of the construction by the petitioner.

¶29

I dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to complete the construction of the Resort by name Maria Resort in the property which is subject matter of this writ petition. However, the petitioner will be informed that the construction will be at his risk and will not stand in the way of the Government or respondents 2 to 4 initiating any proceedings in future on valid grounds.

¶30

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Judge

¶31

dpk

John Michael v. the Pallivasal Grama Panchayath and Othe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

John Michael v. the Pallivasal Grama Panchayath and Othe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.K.Koshy Vs District Collector

Abdul Majeed Vs District Collector, Malappuram

P.C.Sajudheen Vs Edavanna Grama Panchayath

Seeba K.P. Vs State of Kerala

T.K.Rajan Vs Kanhangad Municipality and Others

A.B. Surendran Vs Adimali Block Panchayat