Partly allowed

Dr.Joseph Manak v. Secretary to Government, PWD (Roads & Bridges)

Kerala HC16 Feb 2016WP(C)/1349/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought to stop administration sanction for road widening and demanded NOC for construction. Court allowed NOC issuance upon surrender of two meters of land within four weeks, thus disposing of the petition partially.

What did the court decide?

Issue No Objection Certificate within four weeks; surrender of average two metre width of property required for road widening.

Dr.Joseph Manak Vs Secretary to Government, PWD (Roads… — Specific Performance | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/27TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 1349 of 2016 (P)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

DR.JOSEPH MANAK, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. DR.M.J.JOSEPH, KANAKKAKERIL HOUSE, CHATHANKARI P.O., PERINGARA VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT-689 112.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PWD (ROADS & BRIDGES), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS & BRIDGES), GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶12

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD (ROADS & BRIDGES), KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶13

4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, PALA SUB DIVISION-686 001.

¶14

R1 TO R4 BY ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL SRI.K.A.JALEEL BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.T.P.SAJID

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C).No. 1349 of 2016 (P)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1 : COPY OF THE RECEIPT K.NO.3855477 DTD. 25.9.2015 FOR PAYMENT OF LAND TAX FOR THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER AND OTHER CO-OWNERS.

¶21

P2 : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.DB1-09/2016 DTD. 7.1.2016 SENT BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE SECRETARY, PALA MUNICIPALITY, CONTAINING PROPOSAL FOR WIDENING THE KOTTARAMATTOM JUNCTION.

¶22

P3 : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 11.1.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR PWD.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.

¶29

***************************************************************************** W.P.(C) No.1349 of 2016

¶30

****************************************************************************** Dated this the 16^th day of February, 2016

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner along with sisters and brothers are owners

¶33

of landed property comprised in Survey No.22/53 of Lallam

¶34

Village, Meenachil Taluk, Pala. The petitioner proposed to

¶35

construct a building in the land. The petitioner seeks a

¶36

direction not to grant administrative sanction based on Ext.P2 proposal made by the Assistant Executive Engineer for road

¶37

widening. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the

¶38

Department to issue No Objection Certificate to enable the petitioner to process the application for building permit before

¶39

the local authority.

¶40

In this matter, a counter affidavit has been filed on

¶41

behalf of the fourth respondent. It is stated in paragraph-4 of

¶42

the counter affidavit as follows:

¶43

W.P.(C) No.1349 of 2016 2

¶44

“It is submitted that as per the original proposal, the alignment was proposed having 28.35m radius from the centre of the junction. However, taking into account the grievances raised by the land owners and other affected parties, it was re-considered. Finally, the radius has been reduced from 28.35m to 22m. It is submitted that by reducing the alignment to such an extent to 22m from the centre, the extent of land which is to be taken from the petitioner will also be reduced considerably on account of that the main grievances raised by the petitioner and other land owners have been redressed. The present radius of the said junction is 20m in average from the centre point. Therefore, further extent of an average 2m width of property possessed by the petitioner alone is required to widen the junction. Therefore, the Department is not having any objection in issuing NOC for building permit.”

¶45

In the light of the above counter affidavit, what is required is two metre width of the property possessed by the

¶46

W.P.(C) No.1349 of 2016 3

¶47

petitioner to widen the road. The Department also have no objection in issuing No Objection Certificate for the building permit.

¶48

In the light of the above, if any request is made, No Objection Certificate shall be granted in the light of the above

¶49

to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of

¶50

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶51

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE

¶54

Dr.Joseph Manak v. Secretary to Government, PWD (Roads & Bridges)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Joseph Manak v. Secretary to Government, PWD (Roads & Bridges)

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

Pavithran Vs State of Kerala

The City Theatres (P) Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

N.P.Raman Kutty Vs Sub Registrar Anthicadu

Silvan P.P Vs Radha Lakshmi

Prathapan Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police

P.P. Alikunhi Vs Chief Conservator of Forests (Special Afforestation) & Nodal Officer