Disposed

Mohammed Ali v. Manjeshwar Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC6 Oct 2016WP(C)/15413/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a Panchayat resolution directing demolition of unauthorised construction. The court directed the petitioner to apply for regularisation within one month, after which any further action must be taken with notice to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to apply for regularisation within one month; further action to be taken with notice.

Mohammed Ali Vs Manjeshwar Grama Panchayat — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/14TH ASWINA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 15413 of 2009 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.K.P.AHAMMED, RESIDING NEAR HOMOEO HOSPITAL, HOSEBETTA,, MANJESWAR, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.MADHU

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE MANJESWAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MAJESWAR P.O.,, KASARGOD DISTRICT.

¶11

2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

¶13

R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. VINEETHA HARIRAJ

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 15413 of 2009 (V)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶18

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 21.04.2007

¶19

P2: TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 27.11.2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶20

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 20.05.2009 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶21

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDIINGS DATED 8.10.2007 OF THE VILLAGE OFFICER, HOSEBETTA

¶22

P5: TRUE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BUILDING IN RESPECT OF WHICH EXT.P3 PROCEEDINGS IS INITIATED.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A.TO JUDGE

JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 15413 of 2009 (V)

¶28

Dated: 6^th October, 2016

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P3 issued by

¶31

the Secretary of the Panchayat, wherein the petitioner was directed to demolish the unauthorised construction made in the property.

¶32

The petitioner contends that the petitioner had built a shop room in his property in the year 2007 and had also paid building tax for the same for the year 2007-2008, as is evidenced at Ext.P1. Subsequently, when the petitioner approached the Panchayat for paying the building tax for the year 2008-2009, the said proceedings were taken. In fact, the Council had taken a decision, as is revealed from Ext.P2, to grant regularisation which, however, was not acted upon by

¶33

W.P.(C) No. 15413/2009

¶34

-2-

¶35

the Secretary.

¶36

The cancellation made of the numbering given

¶37

to the building was without notice, is the further contention. The learned Counsel appearing for the Panchayat submits that the action was taken by Ext.P3 only after the Objection Note of the Secretary, along with the decision of the Panchayat, was placed before the Government and the Government directed the Panchayat to demolish the building.

¶38

In the context of there being an interim order all these years, when the writ petition was pending here, it is only proper that the petitioner file an application for regularisation before the Panchayat and the Panchayat, either consider the same by itself or forward it to the Government for consideration, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall file such an application within one month from the date of receipt of the

¶39

W.P.(C) No. 15413/2009

¶40

-3-

¶41

certified copy of this judgment. Any further action shall

¶42

be with notice to the petitioner.

¶43

The writ petition is disposed of. No Costs.

¶44

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶45

jjj 6/10/16

Mohammed Ali v. Manjeshwar Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ali v. Manjeshwar Grama Panchayat

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

K. Sarojini Vs Krishnakumar N.K.

L.Mohanan Vs the City Corporation of Tvm

M.v.Mathai Vs State of Kerala & Ors.

Jose.O.M. Vs Village Officer

T.a.Majeed Vs Corporation of Cochin

C.V. Paul & Anr. Vs State of Kerala and Ors.