Petitioners challenged a building constructed by respondents alleging it was for a church. Court found respondents built a multi-purpose commercial hall, denied church intent, and left the matter disposed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/12TH KARTHIKA, 1938
WP(C).No. 10147 of 2016 (P)
PETITIONER(S):
1. ABRAHAM K.V., S/O.VARGHESE, KAITHARAN HOUSE, CHERAI, CHERAI P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
2. TINTU A.K, S/O.KUNJAPPAN, ARACKAL HOUSE, CHERAI,CHERAI P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
5. BIJU VARGHESE, S/O.VARGHESE, ERALIL HOUSE, CHERAI,CHERAI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001
2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682011
3. THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ERNAKULAM - 682011
WP(C).No. 10147 of 2016 (P)
4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORTKOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682001
5. THE TAHSILDAR , KOCHI TALUK OFFICE, FORTKOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 682001
6. THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF(RURAL) ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683101
7. PALLIPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, CHERAI,CHERAI P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683514
8. FR.TUBY BABY,PRIEST(ORTHODOX FACTION), ST.MARY'S JACOBITE SYRIAN CHRISTIAN CHURCH, CHERAI,CHERAI P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683514
9. M.I.JOHN,S/O.ISAC,
10. M.J.MATHAI,S/O.JACOB, MULAYIRICKAL HOUSE,CHERAI,CHERAI P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683514
11. THOMAS, S/O.JOSEPH, PUTHENPURAKKAL HOUSE,CHERAI, CHERAI P.O,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683514
R1 TO R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.RENIL ANTO R8, R10,R11 BY ADV. SRI.L.RAM MOHAN BY ADV. SRI.M.AUBREY ABRAHAM ISAAC R7 BY SRI.T.A.SHAJI SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SMT.NAMITHA JYOTHISH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-11-2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
bp
WP(C).No. 10147 of 2016 (P)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
EXT:P1: TRUE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE BUILDING PUT UP AT THE INSTANCE OF THE RESPONDENTS NO.8 TO 11. EXT:P2: TRUE COPY OF THE MASS PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE LOCALITY TO THE RESPONDENTS NO.2,6,7 AND OTHERS. EXT:P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 EXT:P4: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6 ON RECEIVING EXT.P2 EXT:P5: TRUE COPY OF GO(P)NO.217/05/HOME DATED 25.07.2005. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : ----------------------EXT.R8(a): COPY OF THE TRUST DEED NO.112/IV/15. EXT.R8(b): COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED by the SECRETARY OF THE FOUNDATION. EXT.R8(c): COPY OF THE SANCTION OF BUILDING PERMIT NO.A 112/2015-16, DT 26/10/2015. EXT.R8(d): COPIES OF THE LETTER DT 17/3/2014 AND WITHDRAWAL OF COMPLAINT. EXT.R8(e): COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT. EXT.R8(f): COPY OF THE LETTER DT 18/3/2016. EXT.R8(g): COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE ST.ROSE CATHOLIC CHURCH. //TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
bp
K. Vinod Chandran,J.
--------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.10147 of 2016-P
---------------------------------------Dated, this the 03rd day of November, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioners were aggrieved with a building constructed by the party respondents in old Survey No.452/2 [Re-survey No.373] of Pallippuram Village, as seen from Exhibit P1 photograph; which, according to the petitioners, was intended to be used as a church.
submitted that the building was constructed only as a multi-purpose hall and they have never intended establishment of a church. It is admitted by the party respondents that they have never made a request to permit them to establish a religious centre in the building.
that the permit granted was for construction of a hall intended for commercial purposes, as is indicated at Exhibit R8(c).
WP(C) No.10147 of 2016 - 2 -
function in the hall. It is also admitted that the said permission was not
granted and they have carried out such function in another church.
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
Vku/-
[ true copy ]
1 issue framed by the court
Whether apprehension that the constructed hall is for religious use is valid when respondents deny church intentions and were not granted permission to establish one.
Abraham K.V.
Tintu A.K
The State of Kerala
Pallipuram Grama Panchayath
K.Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
