Disposed

Zafia v. Mattool Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC6 Jul 2010WP(C)/20885/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner complained about a third respondent attempting to encroach on a pathway and build a wall on her property boundary. The High Court directed respondents 1 and 2 to consider the grievance and take a decision within a month after notice to the third respondent.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondents 1 and 2 to consider the grievance raised in Exhibit P2 and take appropriate decision within a month after notice to the 3rd respondent.

Zafia Vs Mattool Grama Panchayat — Kerala HC (2010) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 20885 of 2010(I)

PETITIONER:

ZAFIA, D/O.ABOOBACKER, PARAKKATTU HOUSE, MATTOOL, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY MR.K.MOHANAKANNAN, ADVOCATE. MS.A.R.PRAVITHA, ADVOCATE. MS.D.S.THUSHARA, ADVOCATE.

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

MATTOOL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 670 302.

¶14

MATTOOL GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, PIN - 670 302.

¶15

SUMAYYA, D/O.SHAREEFA, UTHAKKAN HOUSE, MATTOOL, KANNUR DISTRICT - 670 302.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

¶18

--------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.20885 OF 2010 --------------------------------------Dated this the 6^th day of July, 2010.

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The petitioner is the owner and in possession of 43 cents of land in resurvey No.343/7 of Mattool Amsom and Desom in Mattool Grama Panchayath. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that the 3^rd respondent is trying to encroach upon a path way and is attempting to construct a compound wall on her western boundary which will cripple the access to the property of the petitioner.

¶21

The 3^rd respondent's property is stated to be in resurvey No.343/10. It is submitted that the attempt to construct compound wall is being made without getting any permission from the Panchayath. Exhibit P2 is the copy of the mass petition submitted before the Panchayath and Exhibit P3 receipt shows that they have received the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the grievance raised in Exhibit P2 and take appropriate

¶22

W.P.(C) No.20885/2010

¶23

¶24

decision in the matter.

¶25

There will be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the grievance raised by various complainants in Exhibit P2 and take appropriate decision after notice to the 3^rd respondent within a period of one month. The petitioner will produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition for compliance.

¶26

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶27

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE

¶28

smp

Zafia v. Mattool Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zafia v. Mattool Grama Panchayat

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

K.Gopi Vs the Secretary, Varapetty Grama Panchayt

Vineshkumar.K.K Vs State of Kerala and Others

Sagaran Vs the Deputy Commissioner of Excise

V,Chandrasekharan Nair Vs Subbayya I.A.S

C.H.Achuthan Nair Vs K.S.R.T.C.

Premachandran Vs the District Collector,Kollam