Disposed

Somasekharan Nair v. Vayalar Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC8 Apr 2016WP(C)/2810/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala disposed of a writ petition seeking mandatory relief regarding illegal construction, road widening, and property measurement. It directed the 7th respondent Village Officer to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's application for measurement of property within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directing the 7th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 within six weeks from receipt of the judgment copy.

Somasekharan Nair Vs Vayalar Grama Panchayath — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/19TH CHAITHRA, 1938 WP(C).No. 2810 of 2014 (A)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

SOMASEKHARAN NAIR S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, PRIYANKA NIVAS, FROM PANDISSERIYIL HOUSE, VAYALAR EAST, CHERTHALA BY ADVS. SMT.C.G.BINDU SMT.C.G.AJITHA

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1. VAYALAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VAYALAR, CHERTHALA, PIN:2. P.C. JOSEPH S/O.LATE CHAKO, JOSE VILLAYIL HOUSE FROM PUTHENPURAYIL, VAYALAR MURI, VAYALAR EAST, CHERTHALA PIN3. KURIYACHAN, S/O.JOHN NIKARTHIL FROM PUTHENPURAYIL, VAYALAR MURI, VAYALAR EAST, CHERTHALA PIN4. BIJU KURIYACHAN S/O.KURIYACHAN, VAYALAR MURI, VAYALAR EAST, CHERTHALA PIN5. JAMES ABRAHAM VICE PRESIDENT OF VAYALAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VAYALAR CHERTHALA, PIN6. THOMAS DECRUZ, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PATTANAKKAD BLOCK PANAHAYATH, PATTANAKKAD, CHERTHALA, PIN:7. VILLAGE OFFICER, VAYALAR EAST, VAYALAR, CHERTHALA, PIN:R2,R3,R4 BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR (TR) R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.H.CHANDRABHANU R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P.M.SAREEN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶9

AL/-

¶10

WP(C).No. 2810 of 2014 (A)

¶11

APPENDIX

¶12

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶13

EXT.P1 - TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.651/2005 DT.8-2-2005 OF THE CHERTHALA SUB REGISTRY

¶14

EXT.P2 - TRUE COPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT DT.16-7-2012 ISSUED BY THE VAYALAR VILLAGE OFFICER

¶15

EXT.P3 - TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT.17-1-2014 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 7TH RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER

¶16

EXT.P4 - TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER.

¶17

EXT.P4(A) - A TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT AND THE PLAN ATTACHED WITH THE SAME DATED 11.3.2014.

¶18

EXT.P5-TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.2.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶19

EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.2.2014 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXT.P7- PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PARTIAL REMOVAL OF PETITIONER'S FENCING.

¶21

EXT.P7(A):- PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE COLLECTION OF BUILDING MATERIALS IN PETITIONER'S COMPOUND.

¶22

EXT.P8- TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.8.2015 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶24

EXT.R1(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT VIDE REFERENCE NUMBER C2 1358/2014 DATED 11.3.2014.

TRUE COPY

P.S TO JUDGE

AL/-

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.(C) No.2810 of 2014

¶31

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

¶32

Dated this the 8^th day of April, 2016 JUDGMENT

¶33

The prayers in this writ petition are as follows:

¶34

“a. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ against the 1^st respondent to take immediate action against the illegal construction of the building without a permit issued by the 1^st respondent.

¶35

(aa) A Writ in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ against the 1^st respondent directing the demolition of the building under illegal construction.

¶36

(ab). A Writ in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ against the 1^st respondent directing to issue a stop memo of the building under illegal construction.

¶37

b. A writ in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ against the 1^st respondent directing them to desist from the widening of Kundathil Kadavu to Kuravaru Kadavu road by encroaching upon petitioner's property free of cost.

¶38

W.P.(C) No.2810 of 2014 - : 2 :-

¶39

c. A Writ in the nature of Mandamus or other appropriate writ against the 7^th respondent to measure out petitioner's Ext. P1 property on the basis of Ext.P3 application.

¶40

d. To issue appropriate orders of directions against the respondents to stay the illegal construction of the building by the 3^rd respondent as well as the widening of Kundathil Kadavu to Kuravaru Kadavu road till the disposal of this writ petition.

¶41

e. to issue appropriate orders or directions against respondents 1 and 7 to dispose of Ext.P3 and P4 application and complaint at the earliest.

¶42

f. To issue such other orders or directions that this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the interest of justice.

¶43

g. To award exemplory cost. ”

¶44

When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel appearing for

¶45

the writ petitioner submits that the limited prayer which is being pressed is with regard to consideration of Ext.P3 application preferred by the petitioner before the Tahsildar which has been forwarded to the 7^th respondent Village Officer.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat and learned Government

¶47

W.P.(C) No.2810 of 2014 - : 3 :-

¶48

Pleader as well as the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents.

¶49

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 7^th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

al+

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

True copy

P.S to Judge

Somasekharan Nair v. Vayalar Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somasekharan Nair v. Vayalar 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

Micro Meditex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Labour Court, Ernakulam

Tom.T.Joseph Vs Ks.E.B.

Philip Mathew Vs State of Kerala

Vijayan Vs Kadukutty Grama Panchayat

Sali Vs Edathiruthy Grama Panchayat

M.K.Sukumaran Vs the Regional Transport Authority