Disposed

K.Babu v. Secretary, Perumpadappu Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC14 Feb 2012WP(C)/8794/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court of Kerala directed the Perumpadappu Grama Panchayat to finalize a matter regarding alleged encroachment on Panchayat land by evicting an alleged encroacher after affording a personal hearing to parties within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent to finalize the matter within 6 weeks by taking effective action under the law if encroachment is found, after hearing the parties.

K.Babu Vs Secretary, Perumpadappu Grama… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/25TH MAGHA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 8794 of 2011 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

K.BABU, S/O.SRI.NARAYANAN, KANJIRAVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.CHERAVALLUR VIA. NANNAMUKKU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679575.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.M.S.VINEETH

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. SECRETARY, PERUMPADAPPU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN-679580.

¶11

2. HYDER, S/O.BAPPUTTY, MELEVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.CHERAVALLUR VIA. NANNAMUKKU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679575.

¶12

R1 BY SRI.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-02-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

DCS

¶15

WP(C).No. 8794 of 2011 (Y)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :-

¶18

EXT.P1 COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 04.10.10 SENT TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT

¶19

EXT.P2	COPY OF THE REQUEST SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE OFFICE
	OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 25.01.2011

¶20

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER SENT BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 14.02.2011

¶21

EXT.P4	COPY OF THE PAGE OBTAINED FROM PERUMPADAPPU GRAMA
	PANCHAYATH CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF CHERAVALLUR JUMA
	MASJID ROAD

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :-

¶23

EXT.R1(A)	COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BEFORE THE PANCHAYATH DATED 29.11.2010
EXT.R1(B)	COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE PANCHAYATH BOARD DATED 29.11.2010
EXT.R1(C)	COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DATED 21.03.2011

/TRUE COPY/

P.A. TO JUDGE

DCS

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, J.

¶28

WP(C). No. 8794 of 2011

¶29

Dated this the 14^th day of February, 2012

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Petitioner is seeking direction against the 1^st

¶32

respondent Grama Panchayat for taking effective steps for restoration of the “Cheravallur Juma Masjid” Road to its original position, by evicting the alleged encroachment by the 2^nd respondent. According to the petitioner, inspite of submission of Exhibit P1 complaint by the petitioner and others, the 1^st respondent Panchayat has not taken any effective steps in this regard. In Exhibit P3 reply received from the Panchayat with respect to a quarry made under the Right to Information Act, it is mentioned that a sub committee has been constituted to enquire into the complaint and that a discussion was convened with participation of both the parties. But no action is forthcoming is the complaint.

¶33

Going by the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the

¶34

1^st respondent it is evident that Exhibit R1(A) report is to

¶35

¶36

WP(C). No. 8794 of 2011

¶37

the effect that the 2^nd respondent had encroached into the property which was originally relinquished for construction of the road.

¶38

Contention of the petitioner is that the alleged action of the 2^nd respondent will come within the purview of encroachment into the property vested on the Panchayat, and that the 1^st respondent is bound to take action under the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Removal of encroachments and imposition and recovery of penalty for unauthorised occupation) Rules, 1996.

¶39

Heard, counsel for the petitioner as well as standing counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent Municipality. Inspite of service of notice from this court the 2^nd respondent has not chosen to enter appearance and contest the case.

¶40

Considering the factual aspects I am of the view that a direction to the 1^st respondent to finalise the matter on the basis of Exhibit P1 complaint and on the basis of the

¶41

WP(C). No. 8794 of 2011

¶42

¶43

actions already initiated as enumerated in the Exhibit P3, will serve the ends of justice.

¶44

Therefore the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1^st respondent to finalise the matter after affording an opportunity to the petitioner as well as the 2^nd respondent for personal hearing, at the earliest possible and to take appropriate effective action under the provisions of law, if it is found that there is encroachment into land vested on the Panchayat. The needful in this regard shall be done at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

¶47

/True copy/

¶48

P. A. to Judge

¶49

K.Babu v. Secretary, Perumpadappu Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Babu v. Secretary, Perumpadappu Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.B.Ramachandran Vs Chalakudy Municipality

K.O.Mathai Vs Secretary

Joji Thomas Vs State Ofkerala

Focus Corporation Pvt.Ltd. Vs the Asst.Commissioner and Others

Reghunandanan Vs the Nattika Grama Panchayath

James Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Excise