Dismissed

Ismailkutty v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Sept 2014WP(C)/11276/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the stop memo issued by the Village Officer regarding alleged encroachment on Government land by the petitioner is set aside. The petitioner directed to approach the local authority if permission under the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act is required to regularize the construction.

What did the court decide?

Ext.P10 issued by the Village Officer is set aside. Petitioner directed to approach local authority for permission if required.

Ismailkutty Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014/31ST BHADRA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).NO. 11276 OF 2014 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

ISMAILKUTTY, AGED 83 YEARS, S/O.ALI UMMERKUNJU, RESIDING AT MOOTHERIL HOUSE, THOOKKUPALAM, KALLAR P.O., UDUMBUNCHOLA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN - 685 552.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ABRAHAM MATHEW VETTOOR SRI.SRI.ANIL ABEY JOSE VETTOOR

¶9

RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA,

¶11

REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,

¶12

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001.

¶13

2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,

¶14

IDUKKI, PAINAV, PIN - 685 553.

¶15

3. THE TAHASILDAR,

¶16

UDUMPUNCHOLA, PIN - 685 553.

¶17

4. THE ADDITIONAL TAHASILDAR,

¶18

UDUMPUNCHOLA, PIN - 685 553.

¶19

5. THE TALUK SURVEYOR,

¶20

UDUMPUNCHOLA, PIN - 685 553.

¶21

6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,

¶22

KARUNAPURAM, KOOTTAR P.O., UDUMPUNCHOLA TALUK, PIN-685 552.

¶23

7. KARUNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOOTTAR P.O., PIN - 685 552, UDUMPUNCHOLA TALUK,

¶24

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶25

8. THE SECRETARY, KARUNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOOTTAR P.O., PIN-685 552, UDUMPUNCHOLA TALUK.

Msd.

..2/-

..2..

WP(C).NO. 11276 OF 2014 (H)

¶30

9. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, UDUMPUNCHOLA TALUK, PIN-685 553.

¶31

10. SREEMANDIRAM SASIKUMAR, (MEMBER OF KERALA PRADESH CONGRESS COMMITTEE AND PRESIDENT OF PAMPADUMPARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH), BALAGRAM, KALLAR P.O., PIN - 685 552, UDUMPUNCHOLA TALUK.

¶32

R1 TO R6 & R9 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.MOHAMMED SHAFI R7 & R8 BY ADVS. SRI.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-09-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶34

Msd.

¶35

WP(C).NO. 11276 OF 2014 (H)

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶38

EXHIBIT P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE PATTA NO.2254 DATED 01/08/1977 ISSUED UNDER REFERENCE A.93/76 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR.

¶39

EXHIBIT P2: A TRUE COPY OF A PLAN WHICH WAS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH EXT.P1 DATED NIL.

¶40

EXHIBIT P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT DATED 05/11/2013 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL VILLAGE OFFICER, KARUNAPURAM.

¶41

EXHIBIT P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF BUILDING NO.1/167 AND 168 FOR THE YEAR 2004-05 DATED 18/01/2005.

¶42

EXHIBIT P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF BUILDING NO.1/168A AND 168B FOR THE YEAR 2004-2005 DATED 18/01/2005.

¶43

EXHIBIT P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF BUILDING NO.1/170 AND 171 FOR THE YEAR 2004-2005 DATED 18/01/2005.

¶44

EXHIBIT P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO NO.374/13 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED NIL.

¶45

EXHIBIT P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONER TO THE VILLAGE OFFICER AGAINST EXT.P8 DATED NIL.

¶46

EXHIBIT P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT DATED 13/03/2014.

¶47

EXHIBIT P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE PROHIBITORY ORDER DATED 16/04/2014 ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶48

EXHIBIT P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 16/04/2014 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT.

¶49

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶50

EXHIBIT R8(A): TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 02.05.2014 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT-ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, UDUMBANCHOLA TO THE 8TH RESPONDENT-SECRETARY, KARUNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXHIBIT R8(B): THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04.06.2014 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE KARUNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

¶51

WP(C).NO. 11276 OF 2014 (H)

¶52

EXHIBIT R8(C): THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 04.06.2014ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE KARUNAPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT R8(D): THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶57

= = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.11276 of 2014-H.

¶58

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶59

Dated this the 22^nd day of September, 2014.

¶60

J U D G M E N T

¶61

This writ petition is filed challenging the stop memo issued by the Special Village Officer and the Karunapuram Grama Panchayat. The above orders have been passed as the petitioner found constructing building in Government land and also the land belong to the Panchayath. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner started construction of temporary shed on the property for starting vegetable cum fruit stall and he has not encroached upon that poramboke land. It seems that the issue regarding the identity of the property. The Village Officer issued stop memo in the light of the fact that the petitioner has encroached upon the property. The Panchayath issued the stop memo in the light of the fact that the petitioner has not obtained permission under the Kerala Panchat Raj Act.

¶62

It is submitted by the learned Govt.Pleader on

¶63

¶64

WP(C).No.11276/2014-H.

¶65

instructions that the petitioner has not encroached upon the Government land. In view of the above Ext.P10 is liable to be set aside. However, if permission is required under the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act or Panchayat Building Rules, necessarily the petitioner has to approach the Panchayath to get permission. Therefore this writ petition is disposed of as follows:

¶66

Ext.P10 issued by the Village Officer is set aside. The petitioner shall approach the local authority if any permission is required to regularise any construction made by him and to apply for permit. If the petitioner has a case that no building permit is required it is up to the petitioner to raise objection on Ext.P11 before the local authority.

¶67

Sd/A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE,

¶68

Kvs/-

¶69

// true copy //

Ismailkutty v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ismailkutty v. State of Kerala

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

Bovas K Lassar Vs the State of Kerala

Federation of Residence Association Vs the District Registrar(General)/Society Registrar

Sajith Kumar.R. Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Chandrika Vs State of Kerala

Sharafudheen Vs the Suprintendent of Police

P.R.S. Raja Vs M/S. Tata Aig Life Insurance Company