Disposed

Mini Jayaram v. the President, Vadavukode-Puthencruz Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC28 Jul 2015WP(C)/17900/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to prevent the respondent panchayath from diverting excess water from a chira into the petitioner's agricultural property. The court directed the panchayath to consider pending representations and pass appropriate orders after an opportunity of being heard within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent panchayath to consider pending representations and pass appropriate orders after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard within two weeks.

Mini Jayaram Vs the President, Vadavukode-Puthencruz… — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2015/6TH SRAVANA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 17900 of 2015 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MINI JAYARAM, AGED 46 YEARS, W/O.N.P.JAYARAM, NADUTHOPPIL HOUSE, 'PADMAJA' EROOR P.O., TRIPUNITHURA - 682 306 ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE PRESIDENT, VADAVUKODE-PUTHENCRUZ GRAMA PANCHAYATH PUTHENCRUZ - 682 308.

¶11

2. VADAVUKODE - PUTHENCRUZ GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶12

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE VADAVUKODE - PUTHENCRUZ GRAMA PANCHAYATH PUTHENCRUZ - 682 308.

¶13

3. THE SECRETARY,

¶14

VADAVUKODE - PUTHENCRUZ GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PUTHENCRUZ - 682 308.

¶15

BY SRI.BABU CHERUKARA, SC.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

vmr.

¶18

WP(C).No. 17900 of 2015 (J) ----------------------------

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------

¶21

EXT.P-1: TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE CHIRA AND THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.

¶22

EXT.P-2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.6.2015 EXT.P-2(A): TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.6.2015 EXT.P-3: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 6.6.2015 RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL. ---------------------------------------

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

vmr.

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 17900 of 2015

¶28

Dated this the 28^th day of July, 2015

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

This writ petition is for a direction to the respondents to abstain from the alleged attempt on the part of the respondent panchayath to divert the excess water from the 'chira' (large pond) to the property of the petitioner.

¶31

The petitioner is having 31 ares of land within the local limits of the respondent panchayath. The petitioner alleges that adjoining the said property, there exists a pond, viz., Palpath Chira, which had been earlier used for bathing purpose by the nearby residents. There is a pathway between the property of the petitioner and the said 'chira'. The petitioner alleges that now, the respondents are diverting the rain water and other waste water coming from the upper terrace of the 'chira' into the 'chira'. According to the petitioner, earlier, this

¶32

..2..

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 17900 of 2015

¶34

excess water had been flowing downwards along the side of the adjoining road. She further alleges that the respondents are planning to install a pipe line from the 'chira' through the pathway so as to drain out the excess water from the 'chira' into the property of the petitioner. The petitioner had planted several crops in the her property and if the excess water is diverted from the 'chira' into the agricultural land of the petitioner, it will damage the cultivation; it is alleged. The petitioner's grievance is that though she submitted Exts.P2, P2(a) & P3 representations before the respondents, no action has been taken so far. Hence, this writ petition.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent panchayath.

¶36

Today, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument to the limited prayer for a direction to the respondents to consider Exts.P2, P2(a) & P3

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 17900 of 2015

¶38

representations now pending before the respondents within a time frame after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

¶39

Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent panchayath to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exts.P2, P2(a) & P3 representations after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶40

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶41

bka/-

Mini Jayaram v. the President, Vadavukode-Puthencruz Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mini Jayaram v. the President, Vadavukode-Puthencruz 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

Sabu Mamman Vs the Secretary

Auto Riskchaw Thozhilali Union (B.M.S) Vs District Collector, Alappuzha

T.R.Vijayakumar Vs Aymanam Grama Panchayath (Special Grade)

Laila Vs P.Vijayan

Jabeena Hamid Yafi Vs Arun Rangan

Tata Motors Finance Ltd. Vs the Sub Regional Transport Officer