Allowed

Vincent B.G. v. the Edavanakad Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC16 Jul 2015WP(C)/3868/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition directing the Panchayat to consider and pass orders on a representation regarding illegal construction by respondents. The Court directed the Panchayat to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders within two weeks after affording an opportunity of being heard to the parties.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 within two weeks after affording the petitioner and respondents opportunity of being heard.

Vincent B.G. Vs the Edavanakad Grama Panchayat — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2015/25TH ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 3868 of 2015 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S) :

¶7

VINCENT B.G., AGED 65 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, BLAITHARA HOUSE, OPPOSITE SAJEEVE MEDICALS, ANIYIL, EDAVANAKKADU P.O., PIN: 682 502.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.IBRAHIM

SMT.K.P.AMBIKA

SMT.A.A.SHIBI

RESPONDENT(S):

1. THE EDAVANAKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, EDAVANAKAD- 682 502, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶13

2. ANNA,

¶14

W/O.LATE DEVASSIKUTTY, ATTIPATTY HOUSE, ANIYIL, EDAVANAKKADU P.O., PIN: 682 502.

¶15

3. SHIBU, S/O.ANNA, ATTIPATTY HOUSE, ANIYIL, EDAVANAKKADU P.O, PIN: 682 502.

¶16

R2 & R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.ANAND

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Msd.

¶19

WP(C).No. 3868 of 2015 (G)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶22

P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING ITS MEASUREMENT ON ALL ITS FOUR SIDES.

¶23

P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07/07/2014 OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR, KOCHI ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER, 2ND RESPONDENT AND OTHERS, TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P2.

¶24

P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29/10/2014, TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P3.

¶25

P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 17/11/2014 ADDRESS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT, TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.P4.

¶26

P5: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31/01/2015.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J

¶33

WPC No.3868 of 2015

¶34

Dated this the 16^th day of July, 2015

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the first respondent Panchayat to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 within a time frame.

¶37

According to the petitioner, the first respondent being the authority to ensure that the respondents do not undertake any construction in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 cannot issue any permit without ascertaining the boundary of the property of respondents 2 and 3, especially, when those boundaries that separate the property of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. The first respondent did not take any action on the complaint of the petitioner. As a result of that the respondents are proceeding with the illegal construction encroaching upon the petitioner's property and without leaving the statutory set back from the

¶38

WPC No.3868/2015 2

¶39

boundary. The first respondent has not cared to look into the complaint filed by the petitioner for extraneous considerations. Since the respondents have political influence with the ruling party in the State have managed to keep the complaint in cold storage. It is with this background the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶40

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶41

and the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3.

¶42

As the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his

¶43

argument to the limited prayer for the consideration of Ext.P5 by the first respondent, this Court is of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of.

¶44

In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording the petitioner and respondents 2 & 3 an opportunity of being heard.

¶45

sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶46

css/ true copy

¶47

P.S.TO JUDGE

Vincent B.G. v. the Edavanakad Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vincent B.G. v. the Edavanakad Grama Panchayat

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

Dr.Shajahan Yoosaf Sahib Vs State of Kerala

Sajeer S. Vs Alappuzha Municipality

Kunhiraman Nair Vs the Feroke Grama Panchayath

Sadhanandan K G Vs Baiju M a

Luke Stephen Vs Thodupuzha Municipality

Dr.Suresh John Vs the Kottayam Municipality