Disposed

Fr.Geroge Puthenparambil v. Ettumanoor Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC21 Nov 2016WP(C)/31484/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Panchayath to inspect the property and issue a proper notice if unauthorized construction exists. The Court declined jurisdiction over boundary encroachment between parties.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 1st Respondent (Panchayath) to conduct an inspection within 3 weeks and finalize proceedings with written orders regarding unauthorized construction.

Fr.Geroge Puthenparambil Vs Ettumanoor Grama Panchayath — 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

MONDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/30TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 31484 of 2015 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

FR. GEORGE PUTHENPARAMBIL, S/O. DEVASSIA, VICAR, VETTIMUKAL ST. PAUL'S ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, ETTUMANOOR - 686 631.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.MATHEW JOHN, SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. ETTUMANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ETTUMANOOR POST, KOTTAYAM - 686 631.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY, ETTUMANOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ETTUMANOOR POST, KOTTAYAM-686 631.

¶12

3. VARKEY JOSEPH, KOZHIMULLORAM, VETTIMUKAL, ETTUMANOOR-686 631.

¶13

R1& R2 BY ADVS. SRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY,

¶14

SRI.K.M.ANTONY, SMT.ANU GEORGE, SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY. R3 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL CYRIAC.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

rs.

¶17

WP(C).No. 31484 of 2015 (I)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶20

EXHIBIT-P1- TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TALUK SURVEYOR
AS WELL AS THE SKETCH.

¶21

EXHIBIT-P2TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH TWO OF THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30/10/2014.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P3TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 04/04/2015.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P4TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 13/07/2015 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P5TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 18/08/2015 BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P6TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT-P5 PETITION DATED 18/08/2015 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶27

EXT.R3A COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20/07/2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

EXT.R3B COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING NO.10522 DATED 20/07/2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶33

===================== W.P.(C) No.31484 of 2015 - I

¶34

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

¶35

Dated this the 21^st day of November, 2016

¶36

J U D G M E N T

¶37

The petitioner is aggrieved with the attempt of the Panchayath to resile from Ext.P4 as has been stated in the counter affidavit. The Panchayath has issued Ext.P4 against the 3^rd respondent, for removal of the unauthorised construction, within seven days. However, there are no details of the unauthorised construction in Ext.P4.

¶38

The learned Counsel for the 1^st respondent Panchayath submits that Ext.P4 was only a notice issued, provisionally on the complaint received from the petitioner. The counter affidavit of the 3^rd respondent also states that he has not received any prior notice to Ext.P4. The Panchayath further submits that the complaint alleged in Ext.P5 is one of a boundary

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C) No.31484 of 2015 - I

¶41

dispute and that the Panchayath would not be entitled to look into whether the wall of the 3^rd respondent was constructed, encroaching into the petitioner's property, especially going by Rule 10 of the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011 (for brevity 'the Building Rules'). Rule 10 of the Building Rules specifies that “a sanction would be required for constructing a wall only when the boundary abuts a road or pathway”.

¶42

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a further unauthorised construction of a kitchen made by the 3^rd respondent, which the learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent asserts, can be regularised. As of now, there is no order issued against the 3^rd respondent and Ext.P4 is one issued as on 13.07.2015. In such circumstance, it would be appropriate that the 2^nd respondent conduct an inspection of the property of the 3^rd respondent with notice to the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent and ascertain whether there is any unauthorised construction. If any construction is found to be unauthorised,

¶43

¶44

W.P.(C) No.31484 of 2015 - I

¶45

then necessarily, notice would have to be issued to the 3^rd respondent. The 3^rd respondent would also be entitled to file his objections to the said notice and in the event of there being no violation of the Building Rules, the 3^rd respondent would also be entitled to seek for regularisation.

¶46

The Panchayath shall conduct inspection, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The Panchayath shall also issue written orders either entering satisfaction of there being no unauthorised construction or issuing notice to the 3^rd respondent as to any unauthorised construction carried on by the petitioner. The Panchayath shall finalise the proceedings, within a period of three weeks of inspection.

¶47

It is made clear that with respect to the compound wall abutting on the boundary of the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent, the Panchayath would have absolutely no jurisdiction. If at all, an encroachment is there, the petitioner

¶48

¶49

W.P.(C) No.31484 of 2015 - I

¶50

would have to take appropriate remedies.

¶51

It is also stated by the learned Standing Counsel for

¶52

the respondent that the Panchayath has been converted into a Municipality now. However, if construction has been carried on prior to the conversion, the Building Rules as on that date would

¶53

have to be looked into, to order regularisation or demolition.

¶54

The writ petition would stand disposed of. No costs.

¶55

Sd/-

¶56

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶57

SB/21/11/2016

¶58

// true copy //

¶59

P.A to Judge

Fr.Geroge Puthenparambil v. Ettumanoor Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fr.Geroge Puthenparambil v. Ettumanoor 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

P.P.Joseph Vs Mathai

Rana Sthuthi Vs Corporation of Kozhikode

Pandalam Block Panchayath Vs State of Kerala

Sreedharan M. Vs the Ajanur Grama Panchayath

Vineesh K.M. Vs Ayanchery Grama Panchayath

K.Padmanabhan Nair Vs Secretary,Corporation of Kozhikode