Disposed

P.v.Ramesan v. the Secretary, Azhikode Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC6 Aug 2012WP(C)/8347/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the Panchayat Secretary to inspect the site regarding alleged encroachment by the 2nd respondent. If Building Rules violations are found, the Secretary must take action within 8 weeks. The dispute involves private family land rights and construction compliance.

What did the court decide?

Secretary to inspect site and take action within 8 weeks if Building Rules are violated.

P.v.Ramesan Vs the Secretary, Azhikode Grama… — 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

MONDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/15TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 8347 of 2008 (R)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.V. RAMESAN, S/O.GOVINDAN, POYAKKARA VEEDU, CHEMMARASSERIPPARA, P.O. AZHIKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SMT.REKHA K.B., SRI.P.U.SHAILAJAN.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SECRETARY,

¶11

AZHIKODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶12

P.O. AZHIKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶13

2. P.V. SUGATHAKUMARI,

¶14

POYAKKARA HOUSE,

¶15

CHEMMARASSERIPPARA,

¶16

P.O. AZHIKODE, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶17

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.C.KHALID, SRI.R.O.MUHAMED SHEMEEM, SRI.T.P.SAJID.

¶18

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

¶19

rs.

¶20

WP(C).No. 8347 of 2008 (R)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶23

EXT.P1	COPY OF THE REGISTERED PARTITION DEED 2007 OF 1994
	BEFORE THE S.R.O. VALAPATTANAM.
EXT.P2	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 09/02/2004 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS.

¶24

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENTS DATED 20/02/2004.

¶25

EXT.P4	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 08/03/2004 SUBMITTED
	BEFORE THE PANCHAYATH DEPUTY DIRECTOR BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P5	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 08/06/2004 ISSUED BY THE
	PANCHAYATH DEPUTY DIRECTOR TO THE PETITIONER.

¶26

EXT.P6	COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE PANCHAYATH DEPUTY DIRECTOR
	DATED 19/07/2004 TO THE PETITIONER.

¶27

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 01/07/2004 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AZHIKODE GRAMA PANCHAYATH BOARD.

¶28

EXT.P8	COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 15/09/2004 ISSUED BY PANCHAYATH
	PRESIDENT TO PETITIONER AND P.V. SUGATHAKUMARI FOR A
	MEDIATION TALK ON 17/09/2004.

¶29

EXT.P9	COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEDIATION TALK DATED 17/09/2004.
EXT.P10	COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH PRESIDENT DATED 16/11/2004 TO THE PETITIONER.

¶30

EXT.P11 COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 16/03/2005 ISSUED BY PETITIONER THROUGH ADVOCATE PRASAD M.K. TO THE RESPONDENTS.

¶31

EXT.P12	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/01/2006 OF THE HONOURABLE
	OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,
	THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶32

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶33

EXT.R2A COPY OF THE PLAN AND PERMIT ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY.

¶34

EXT.R2B COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 25/12/2004 BEFORE THE SECRETARY TO GRAMA PANCHAYATH.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

W.P.(C) NO.8347 OF 2008(R)

¶39

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

¶40

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

¶41

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

¶42

Dated this the 7^th day of August, 2012

¶43

J U D G M E N T

¶44

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶45

Petitioner and the 2^nd respondent are brother and sister. It appears that there was a partition in their family, the deed of which is Ext.P1. According to the petitioner, the partition deed provided for a common pathway and that the 2^nd respondent made certain constructions encroaching into said pathway. He made complaint to the Panchayat and Ext.P3 order was issued directing demolition of the offending construction. The order was not implemented or complied with and left with no other option, he approached the Deputy Director of Panchayat. The Deputy Director finally issued Ext.P6 asking the Secretary of the Panchayat to take action against the unauthorized construction and to report compliance. This order was also not complied with and the petitioner represented to the President of the Panchayat. Although, the President mediated in the matter, no effective action was taken for implementing Exts.P3 or P6.

¶46

WPC.No. 8347/2008

¶47

:2 :

¶48

In such circumstances, petitioner moved the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. However, the Ombudsman by Ext.P12 rejected the complaint holding that the Panchayat has taken action in the matter. It is in these circumstances the writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for the implementation of Exts.P3 and P6.

¶49

The stand taken by the Panchayat is that this essentially is a private dispute between the brother and sister. It is also stated that the Panchayat has already taken appropriate action in the matter. In so far as the 2^nd respondent is concerned, she denies the allegations and submits that no action is warranted against her.

¶50

I heard the counsel appearing for the parties and considered the submissions. If as stated by the first respondent Panchayat this is a personal dispute between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent, Panchayat may not have any role to play. However, as contended by the petitioner, if there is violation of the Building Rules, necessarily, it is for the Panchayat to take action in the matter. Therefore what is required is that the Panchayat should consider whether the 2^nd respondent has committed any violation of the Building Rules and Ext.R2(a) permit and if there is such violation, necessarily the

¶51

WPC.No. 8347/2008

¶52

:3 :

¶53

Panchayat will take appropriate action in the matter.

¶54

In that view, I direct that the Secretary of the Panchayat will inspect the site and ascertain whether there is any violation of the Building Rules. On such inspection, if the Secretary is satisfied that the Building Rules have been violated, the Secretary shall take appropriate action in the matter, in accordance with law. However, in spite of such finding, it will still be open to the 2^nd respondent to seek regularisation of the construction and any action taken by the Panchayat shall be without prejudice to that right. This process shall be completed by the Panchayat within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment.

¶55

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶56

(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE

¶57

vi/

¶58

WPC.No. 8347/2008

¶59

:4 :

P.v.Ramesan v. the Secretary, Azhikode Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.v.Ramesan v. the Secretary, Azhikode 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

Abdul Salim Vs Thomas P.J.

Maradu Municipality Vs Indus Towers Ltd.

K.K. Hassan Koya Vs Secretary, Kakkodi Grama Panchayath

K.S.Sanu Vs the Excise Inspector

M.K.Govindan Vs the State of Kerala

Kollakandi Surendran Vs Special Grade Secretary