Dismissed

Mr.Jaleel v. the Secretary,Keezhmadu Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC8 Jun 2016RP/130/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this review petition, the High Court of Kerala rejected the application for condonation of delay and the request for a re-hearing. The court held that the Review Petitioner had previously accepted the need to leave 3.8 meters for the canal and side bunds, thereby waiving any prior sanction, and found no sufficient ground to review the original judgment.

What did the court decide?

The delay condonation petition and the review petition are rejected.

Mr.Jaleel Vs the Secretary,Keezhmadu Grama Panchayat — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/18TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

RP.No. 130 of 2016 (M) IN WP(C).21330/2013

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21330/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 24-03-2015

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER/6TH RESPONDENT:

¶8

MR.JALEEL, S/O. KUNJUMOHAMED MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUTTAMASSERRY THOTTUMMUGHAM, ALUVA REPRESENTED BY THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ABDUL SALAM, S/O. KUNJUMOHAMED MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE KUTTAMASSERRY, THOTTUMMUGHAM, ALUVA.

¶9

BY ADV. SMT.K.K.RAZIA

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 4:

¶11

1. THE SECRETARY, KEEZHMADU GRAMA PANCHAYAT KEEZHMADU, ALUVA-683 102.

¶12

2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, THOTTAKKATTUKARA ALUVA-683 102.

¶13

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, ERNAKULAM CIVIL STATION KAKKANAD-682 030.

¶14

4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682 030.

¶15

5. THE TAHSILDAR, ALUVA TALUK ALUVA-683 101.

¶16

6. MOHAMED ASHRAF, AGED 56 YEARS S/O. KUNJUMOHAMED, AASHARIMALIL HOUSE KUTTAMASSERRY, THOTTUMMUGHAM P.O. ALUVA-683 105.

¶17

[CONTD....]

¶18

¶19

RP.No. 130 of 2016 (M)

¶20

7. MOHAMED JAZEEL, AGED 32 YEARS S/O. ABDUL JALEEL, JAZEEL MANZIL KUTTAMASSERRY, THOTTUMMUGHAM ALUVA-683 105.

¶21

8. IBRAHIMKUTTY, AGED 68 YEARS S/O. BEERAVU, THATTARAKUDY HOUSE KUTTAMASSERRY, THOTTUMMUGHAM ALUVA-683 105.

¶22

9. RANEEF AHAMED Z., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.ZYED MOHAMED KUZHIKKATTIL HOUSE, KUTTAMASSERRY, THOTTUMMUGHAM ALUVA-683 105.

¶23

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. C.K. SHERIN BY ADVS.SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SRI.K.R.VINOD

¶24

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

¶26

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶27

----------------------------------

¶28

R.P. No.130 of 2016-M In W.P(C). No.21330 of 2013-M

¶29

---------------------------------Dated this the 8^th day of June, 2016

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

The Review Petitioner seeks a re-hearing of

¶32

the entire matter, by the above review petition. It is contended that the averment made by the 2^nd respondent, that the width of the canal, together with side bunds, abutting the property of the petitioner, is 3.8 meters cannot be factually substantiated. The petitioner contends that the permission granted to the petitioner as per Exts.P1&P2 sketch and No-objection Certificate, respectively, would permit the petitioner to construct the compound

¶33

R.P. No.130 of 2016-M In W.P(C). No.21330 of 2013-M 2

¶34

wall without leaving 3.8 meters width, for the

¶35

canal and side bunds.

¶36

The Review Petitioner was the 6^th

¶37

respondent in the writ petition filed against the construction of a compound wall, which was alleged to be encroaching on the access to the residences of the petitioners. The review petitioner claimed that he should be permitted to construct the wall in accordance with the No-Objection issued as per Ext.P2. This Court, by the judgment under review, had elaborately detailed the contentions of either of the properties and had specifically noticed the contention of the 2^nd respondent that the

¶38

property of the canal and the side bunds were freely surrendered by the owners in 1952 and even the sketch is not available with the

¶39

R.P. No.130 of 2016-M In W.P(C). No.21330 of 2013-M 3

¶40

Office.

¶41

It is on a factual measurement of the

¶42

property that the conditional No-Objection Certificate was granted, wherein the petitioner

¶43

was permitted to build a compound wall, but however ensuring that 3.8 meter width of the canal along with the bunds, is not encroached upon. This Court does not find any reason to review the judgment, especially in the context

¶44

of the direction in the judgment; to the Panchayat, was to consider the application submitted by the Review Petitioner produced as Ext.R6(a) in the writ petition, which is also for a compound wall.

¶45

In such circumstance, the Review Petitioner definitely gave up the sanction accorded as per Exts.P1&P2 and filed a fresh application,

¶46

R.P. No.130 of 2016-M In W.P(C). No.21330 of 2013-M

¶47

¶48

noticing the fact that he is obliged to leave 3.8 meters width for the canal and side bunds. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment passed. No sufficient ground is shown to condone delay too. Hence, the delay condonation petition and the review petition are rejected.

¶49

Sd/-

¶50

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE.

¶51

//True Copy// P.A. to Judge.

¶52

sp/08/06/16

Mr.Jaleel v. the Secretary,Keezhmadu Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Jaleel v. the Secretary,Keezhmadu 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

Reymond Antony Vs District Collector, Kollam

R.Rajesh Vs Kerala Water Authority

Minimol.U.K. & Others Vs Registrar,M.G.University.

Kerala State Beverages Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Mohanakumar Vs Dr.M.Jayaprakas

Vijayan Pillai S. Vs Arshad M.