Allowed

Kizhakkeveettil Vijayan v. Payyannur Municipality and Other

Kerala HC22 Nov 2010WP(C)/16204/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court issued directions to the Secretaries of the Payyannur Municipality. They were ordered to enquire into a pending complaint, conduct a local inspection with the Town Planner, and initiate appropriate proceedings under the Kerala Municipality Act regarding illegal construction within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Second Respondent to enquire into Ext.P1 complaint, conduct a local inspection with the Town Planner, and initiate proceedings under Section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act within

Kizhakkeveettil Vijayan Vs Payyannur Municipality and Other — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND NOVEMBER 2010 / 1ST AGRAHAYANA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 16204 of 2010(A)

PETITIONER(S):

KIZHAKKEVEETTIL VIJAYAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, POORNIMA, PAYYANNUR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.PAYYANNUR, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶14

THE SECRETARY, PAYYANNUR MUNICIPALITY, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶15

SIVAPRASAD S.SHENOY, S/O.SURENDRA SHENOY SUNSUN AYUVEDA MEDICAL, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT

¶16

ADV. SRI.T.P.KELU NAMBIAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR FOR R3

¶17

SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R1,2

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

W.P(C)No.16204/2010

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.2.2009 TOGETHER WITH RECEIPT DATED 28.2.2009

¶23

EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7.3.2009

¶24

EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.6.2009

¶25

EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.3.2010 IN W.P(C)NO.30564/2009

¶26

EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 4.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY.

¶27

EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH.

¶28

EXT.P7. TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 18.5.2010 SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE SURVEY SKETCH.

¶29

/ TRUE COPY /

¶30

P.S.TO JUDGE

¶31

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶32

W.P(C).No.16204 of 2010

¶33

Dated this the 22^nd day of November, 2010

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

The petitioner and the 3^rd respondent are both residing within the local limits of Payyannur Municipality. Aggrieved by the building put up by the 3^rd respondent, which according to the petitioner encroaches into the petitioner's lands, the petitioner has filed Ext.P1 complaint dated 28.2.2009 before the Secretary of Payyannur Municipality. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that though more than one year and eight months have passed after the said complaint was filed, till date the second respondent, the Secretary of Payyannur Municipality, has not taken any action on Ext.P1 complaint. In this writ petition the petitioner seeks a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P1 complaint and take an appropriate decision thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

¶36

The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit stating that the apprehension entertained by the petitioner that the Municipality will not discharge its duty is misplaced.

¶37

W.P(C).No.16204 of 2010

¶38

-:2:-

¶39

I heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.M.Sasindran, learned standing counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.M.Gopikrishnan Nambiar, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. Respondents 1 to 3 do not dispute the fact that Ext.P1 complaint filed by the petitioner alleging that the building put up by the third respondent is an illegal construction is pending before the Secretary of the Payyannur Municipality. Under the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act the second respondent has a statutory duty to enquire into the said complaint and take an appropriate decision in the matter. In such circumstances I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to enquire into Ext.P1 complaint and take an appropriate decision thereon in accordance with law expeditiously and in any event within one month from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before him. The second respondent shall conduct a local inspection of the lands belonging to the petitioner and the third respondent with notice to them and in their presence along with the Town Planner. If the second respondent is satisfied

¶40

W.P(C).No.16204 of 2010

¶41

-:3:-

¶42

that the building put up by the third respondent is an illegal construction he shall initiate appropriate proceedings under section 406 of the Kerala Municipality Act.

¶43

P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge.

¶44

ahg.

¶45

P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

¶46

W.P(C).No.16204 of 2010

¶47

JUDGMENT

¶48

22^nd November, 2010

Kizhakkeveettil Vijayan v. Payyannur Municipality and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kizhakkeveettil Vijayan v. Payyannur Municipality and Other

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

Thomas Abraham Vs the Secretary

Radhamony Vs Thiruvalla Municipality and Others

L.Aloshious Vs Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

C.R.Joseph Vs M/S. Indus Towers Ltd.

M/S.Kallada Holiday Inn Vs State of Kerala and Others

Sumithra Vs the District Collector