Petitioner sought direction to Panchayath to implement a prohibitory order stopping construction due to a civil dispute. Court held since the dispute was private, Panchayath had no role and cannot be directed to act.
Writ petition dismissed with no direction to implement the prohibitory order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932
WP(C).No. 1204 of 2006(R)
--------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------
V.K. KUNJU MOIDEEN, VEERASSERIL, CHENGALAM, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SMT.GIRIJA.L.
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------
1. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM.
2. SECRETARY, THIRUVARPPU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KILIROOR NORTH P.O., KOTTAYAM.
3. DASAPPAN, ARUPARAYIL VEEDU, CHENGALAM, KOTTAYAM.
R1 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.V.T.K.MOHAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR R3 BY SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (TR)
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
svs
WP(C).No. 1204/2006(R)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
svs
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
W.P(C) NO.1204 OF 2006
Dated this the 8th March, 2011
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner approached this Court praying for a direction to the 2nd respondent to implement Ext.P2 communication described as prohibitory order. Reading of this order shows that by this communication, the Panchayath prohibited the 3rd respondent from continuing the construction activities that was then going on. It is complaining of non-implementation of Ext.P2 the writ petition was filed.
2
W.P(C) NO.1204 OF 2006
the petitioner and the 3rd respondent was purely a private civil dispute and that therefore the Panchayth did not take any further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2.
filed by the Panchayath. Obviously, the dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent was a private dispute. In such a case, the Panchayath can have no role to play. Therefore, the Panchayath cannot be directed to implement Ext.P2 nor can the 1st respondent be directed to take further action based on Ext.P3.
The writ petition is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
dmb
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revenue authorities could be directed to implement a prohibitory order issued by a Panchayath when the underlying dispute was purely private in nature.
V.K. KUNJU MOIDEEN
REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM
SECRETARY, THIRUVARPPU GRAMA PANCHAYATH
DASAPPAN
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
