Allowed

Gopi v. District Collector

Kerala HC9 Aug 2012WP(C)/10178/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a proposed construction by Chengamanad Panchayat in an open area of Kapprassery Laksham Veedu Colony. The court converted its interim order, which prohibited the Panchayat from undertaking any construction in the specified open space, into an absolute order.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 24.3.2004 directing the Panchayat not to undertake any construction in the open space was made absolute.

Gopi Vs District Collector — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/18TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 10178 of 2004 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. GOPI, KALLIL HOUSE, KAPRASSERY

¶8

LAKSHAM VEEDU, NEDUMBASSERY.

¶9

2. DEVU VALLON, LAKSHAM VEEDU,

¶10

KAPPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY.

¶11

3. KURUMBAKKUTTY KOCHAYYAPPAN,

¶12

KALLUNDA PARAMBU, LAKSHAM VEEDU, KAPPRASSERY NEDUMBASSERY.

¶13

4. ANITHA GOPI, KALLIL VEEDU,

¶14

LAKSHAM VEEDU, KAPPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY.

¶15

5. SALINI KRISHNAN, ANIPPARAMBIL, LAKSHAM VEEDU, KAPPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY.

¶16

6. SHYNI SHYJU, LAKSHAM VEEDU,

¶17

KAPPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY.

¶18

7. PUSHPA, LAKSHAM VEEDU, KAPPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY.

¶19

8. MANI. P., LAKSHAM VEEDU, KAPPRASSRY, NEDUMBASSERY.

¶20

9. KOCHUKALI KANNAN, LAKSHAM VEEDU, KAPPRASSRY, NEDUMBASSERY.

¶21

10. SANAL THANKAPPAN, LAKSHAM VEEDU,

¶22

KAPPRASSRY, NEDUMBASSERY.

¶23

11. BIJU MUTHAKURUMBAN, LAKSHAM VEEDU, KAPPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY.

¶24

12. VELAYUDHAN, LAKSHAM VEEDU,

¶25

KAPPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY.

¶26

13. KUMARAN. O.K., OLOPPILLY HOUSE, LAKSHAM VEEDU, KAPPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY.

¶27

WP(C).No. 10178 of 2004 (J) :2:

¶28

14. ANIL KUMAR KRISHNANKUTTY, LAKSHAM VEEDU, KAPPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY.

¶29

15. SAJEEV. M.A., MADATHILPARAMBIL, LAKSHAM VEEDU, KAPPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY.

¶30

16. KARIYAL KURUMBAN, LAKSHAM VEEDU, KAPPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY. 17. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN, LAKSHMA VEEDU, KAPPRASSRY, NEDUMBASSERY. 18. JAMEELA SHAJI, ILLATHUPARAMBU, LAKSHAM VEEDU, KAPPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY. 19. NABEESA, LAKSHAM VEEDU, KAPPRASSERY, NEDUMBASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR

¶31

RESPONDENT(S):

¶32

1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. CHENGAMANAD PANCHAYATH, NEDUMBASSERY P.O., ERNAKULAM,

¶33

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.M.F.MOHAMMOD SIYAD

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

WP(C).No. 10178 of 2004 (J)

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-

¶38

EXT.P1 : THE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BEFORE THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR BY THE PETITIONERS. EXT.P2 : THE EXTRACT COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 17-3-2004. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

amk

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.(C) NO.10178 OF 2004(J)

¶45

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

¶46

Dated this the 9^th day of August, 2012

¶47

J U D G M E N T

¶48

Petitioners are the residents of Kapprassery Laksham Veedu Colony. According to the petitioners the Panchayat proposed to make certain constructions there. Therefore, they approached this

¶49

court by filing this writ petition and the prayers sought are as follows;

¶50

“(a). Issue a writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ or order commanding the Ist respondent from converting or making any construction in the open space situated in the middle of Kapprasssery Laksham Veedu colony situated in Ward No.7 of Chengamanad Panchayat.

¶51

(b) Declare the open space lying in the middle of Kapprassery Laksham Veedu Colony in Ward No.7 of Chengamanad Panchayath is to be maintained as open area for the common usage of the colony members for conducting functions like marriage ceremony, funeral etc.”

¶52

At the admission stage this court passed order dated

¶53

24.3.2004 directing the Panchayat not to undertake any construction

¶54

in the open space referred to above. Despite the service of notice, there is no appearance on behalf of the Panchayath.

¶55

WPC.No.10178/04

¶56

:2 :

¶57

Therefore I dispose of this writ petition making the interim order

¶58

dated 24.3.2004 absolute.

¶59

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶60

vi/

¶61

WPC.No.10178/04

¶62

:3 :

Gopi v. District Collector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi v. District Collector

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

A.M.Kasim Vs State of Kerala

Thulaseedharan Vs State of Kerala

John @ Varghese Vs State of Kerala & Ors.

Antony P.A. Vs Varghese

K. Surendran Achari Vs State of Kerala

M.Abdul Nadeer Vs the Ramanattukara Grama Panchayath and