Disposed

Nalini v. Porkulam Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC5 Feb 2015WP(C)/3902/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition concerning alleged demolition of a residential building and compound wall by the respondent panchayat for road widening, the Court observed that proceedings must only continue after satisfying the petitioners regarding the correctness of measurements taken by the Taluk Surveyor.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed the respondents to fix a hearing date; on that date, the petitioners must be present, and the respondents, assisted by the Taluk Surveyor, must satisfy the petitioners that proceedi

Nalini Vs Porkulam Grama Panchayath — Landlord and Tenant | 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 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/16TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 3902 of 2013 (K)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. NALINI,W/O.VASU.K.K, KANAKENCHERY HOUSE, WEST MANGAD.P.O.,

¶8

THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶9

2. VASU.K.K., S/O.KUNJUMON,

¶10

KANAKENCHERY HOUSE, WEST MANGAD.P.O.,

¶11

THRISSUR DISTRICT.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.YASH THOMAS MANNULLY

¶13

SRI.P.A.GIREESH KUMAR

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1. PORKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PORKULAM.P.O., VIA KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 542, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

2. THE SECRETARY, PORKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PORKULAM.P.O., VIA KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN-680 542.

¶17

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJIT

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sts

¶20

WP(C).NO.3902/2013

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶23

P1TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT FOR LAND IN RESURVEY NO.18/5 OF MANGAD VILLAGE.

¶24

P2TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT OF PORKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT FOR THE YEAR 2012-13.

¶25

P3TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 04.01.2013 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶26

P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25.01.2013 GIVEN BY SECOND PETITIONER.

¶27

P5TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 30.01.2013 GIVEN BY THE FIRST PETITIONER.

¶28

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES:

¶29

ANNEX (A): COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TAHSILDAR ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH CONDUCTED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶34

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

¶35

W.P(C) No.3902 of 2013

¶36

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5^th day of February, 2015

¶37

JUDGMENT

¶38

Alleging that the respondents are taking hasty steps to

¶39

demolish the residential building and compound wall of the

¶40

petitioners for the purpose of widening the road, the petitioners have come before this Court.

¶41

The petitioners are residents of Porkulam Grama Panchayat.

¶42

They allege that the first petitioner owns 1.5 ares of land in Mangad village within in the local limits of the respondent panchayat. They further allege that the second petitioner who is bed ridden received a notice on 17.1.2013 issued by the second respondent stating that after re-fixing the survey subdivision boundaries of R.S Nos.88 and 89 of Mangad village, it is seen that the second petitioner has encroached

¶43

upon the land belonging to the panchayat and directing to vacate the

¶44

encroached land within 15 days.

¶45

-:2:-

¶46

WP(C)3902/13

¶47

The petitioners allege that no notice was given to them for re-fixing the boundaries and there was no demarcation done. The notice was issued arbitrarily without the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor. They further allege that they have submitted a reply dated 4.1.2013. However, the second respondent has proceeded with the action without considering the reply.

¶48

In the statement filed by the respondents, they stated that notice was given to the occupants of the property. On either side of the road, measurement was effected by the Taluk Surveyor on the basis of the approved plan. It is also stated that the petitioners have received the notice.

¶49

As the stand taken by the petitioners is that they were unaware of the measurements made by the respondent panchayat, further proceedings shall be only after satisfying the petitioners regarding the correctness of the measurements. The respondents shall fix a date for hearing on which date, the petitioners shall be

¶50

-:3:-

¶51

WP(C)3902/13

¶52

present. The respondents with the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor

¶53

shall satisfy that the proceedings are initiated only for the removal of

¶54

encroachment.

¶55

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶58

krj

Nalini v. Porkulam Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nalini v. Porkulam 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

P.K. Jaleel Vs the Kerala State Wakf Board

M.M.Luca Vs the District Collector

C.G.Joy Vs Secretary, Vadakkekara Grama Panchayath

A.T. Rejimon Vs Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

M v Jose Vs Vengola Grama Panchayath

Sivaprasath Vs Tahsildar