Disposed

Muhammed Iqbal v. the Secretary, Karumaloor Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC8 Jun 2012WP(C)/5116/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner complained of encroachment and obstruction of entry due to unauthorized flag-hoisting and advertisement by political parties on land adjacent to his property. The court directed the Taluk Tahsildar to investigate the complaint, conduct an enquiry, and furnish a reply within six weeks. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Order to third respondent to look into complaint, conduct enquiry, and furnish reply within six weeks.

Muhammed Iqbal Vs the Secretary… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/18TH JYAISHTA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 5116 of 2012 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

MUHAMMED IQBAL, AGED 42 YEARS S/O.MAMMOO, CHIRAPURATHU HOUSE, KARUMALOOR VILLAGE MANJALY KARA, PARAVOOR TALUK.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.SIRAJ KAROLY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S): --------------

¶10

THE SECRETARY, KARUMALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH KARUMALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE-683511.

¶11

KARUMALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY KARUMALOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE KARUMALOOR-683511.

¶12

TALUK TAHSILDAR, PAROOR TALUK, NORTH PARAVUR-683513.

¶13

REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICE FORT KOCHI-682002.

¶14

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ALUVA NORTH POLICE STATION, P.O.ALANGAD-683511.

¶15

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI JOSEPH GEORGE

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WPC 5116/2012

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED DATED 4.9.2002. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 6.2.2012. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 11.4.2010. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER DATED 21.2.2012.

¶21

RESPONDENT'S EXTS: NIL

¶22

ms

¶23

\\True copy//

¶24

P.A to Judge

¶25

T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

¶26

W.P.(C). No.5116/2012-L

¶27

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Dated this the 8th day of June, 2012

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner's grievance is that even though a representation was filed as per Ext.P4 pointing out certain encroachment, in a portion of the land between the Panchayat's road and his property and the area is being utilised by various political parties and others to hoist flags and to put advertisement boards etc., no action has been taken so far. It is pointed out that entry to the building is thus obstructed.

¶30

Heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶31

I am not going into the merits of the matter. I hereby direct the

¶32

third respondent to look into the complaint raised in Ext.P4, conduct due enquiry and furnish a reply to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this Judgment. The petitioner will produce a copy of the writ petition along with a certified copy of this Judgment before the third respondent for compliance. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶33

(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)

¶34

ms

Muhammed Iqbal v. the Secretary, Karumaloor Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Iqbal v. the Secretary, Karumaloor Grama Panchayath

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

State of Kerala Vs v.P.Sajitha Devi

Ajith Mathew Vs State of Kerala

V.P.Sajithadevi Vs the State of Kerala and Others

Chellamma Vs State of Kerala

Basil Syam Vs the Registrar, Kerala University of Health Sciences

Jose Thomas M. Vs State of Kerala