Remanded

P.Vijayakumar v. Pathanamthitta Municipality

Kerala HC9 Nov 2016WP(C)/31689/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition challenging an order setting aside appellate jurisdiction. The Court held that eviction notices issued for a dilapidated building fell under Section 411 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, not Section 215. Consequently, the tribunal erred in denying appellate jurisdiction, and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order of the Tribunal setting aside a notice dated 23.7.2010 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for de novo consideration.

P.Vijayakumar Vs Pathanamthitta Municipality — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/18TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 31689 of 2010 (I)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. P.VIJAYA KUMAR, S/O.PONNAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHAITHANYA,, MAROOR DESOM, PRAMADAM VILLAGE, MALLASSERY (PO),, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

2. P.AJAYA KUMAR, S/O.PONNAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 49 YEARS, MANAYKALETH VEEDU,, PRAMADAM VILLAGE, MALLASSERY (PO),, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶9

3. R.GOPINATHAN, S/O.G.RAGHAVAN, AGED 56 YEARS, PUTHENVEEDU, THAZHEVETTIPURAM, DESOM, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE,, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶10

4. IBRAHIM PILLAI, S/O.KHASIM PILLAI, AGED 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT VILAKKAM, PURAYIDAM VEEDU, VETTIPURAM VILLAGE,, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶11

5. SHAMSUDHEEN, S/O.LATE APPACHI ISMAYIL MEER RAWATHER,, AGED 55 YEARS, ALANKARATH VADAKKETHIL VEEDU,, KULASEKHARAPATHI DESOM, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE,, KOZHENCHERY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶12

6. RAGHAVAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANTHOSH BHAVAN,, V-KOTTAYAM VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERY TALUK,, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶13

7. SUBRAMANIYA PILLAI, S/O.ANDI PILLAI, AGED 61 YEARS, PULIMOOTTIL VEEDU,, VETTIPURAM MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA VILLAGE,, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADVS.SRI.G.P.SHINOD SRI.RAM MOHAN.G.

¶14

RESPONDENT(S):

¶15

1. PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶16

2. THE SECRETARY, PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY,, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV.SRI.V.K.SUNIL, STANDING COUNSEL

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 31689 of 2010 (I)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :

¶21

P1 : COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.R2-3335/04 (VOL.II) DATED 23.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE FIRST PETITIONER.

¶22

P2 : COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.R2-3335/04 (VOL.II) DATED 23.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE SECOND PETITIONER.

¶23

P3 : COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.R2-3335/04 (VOL.II) DATED 23.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE THIRD PETITIONER.

¶24

P4 : COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.R2-3335/04 (VOL.II) DATED 23.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶25

P5 : COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.R2-3335/04 (VOL.II) DATED 23.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE FIFTH PETITIONER.

¶26

P6 : COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.R2-3335/04 (VOL.II) DATED 23.7.2010 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE SIXTH PETITIONER.

¶27

P7 : COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.R2-3335/04 (VOL.II) DATED 23.7.2010

¶28

ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE SEVENTH PETITIONER.

¶29

P8 : COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.666 OF 2010 DATED 29.7.2010 FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶30

P9 : COPY OF THE APPEAL NO.750 OF 2010 DATED 12.8.2010 FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶31

P10 : COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 27.9.2010 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶32

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.

¶37

========================= W.P.(C) No.31689 of 2010

¶38

========================== Dated this the 9^th day of November, 2016

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The petitioners are impugning Ext.P10 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions (for short 'the Tribunal'), Thiruvananthapuram.

¶41

The petitioners approached the Tribunal agrieved by Exts.P1 to P7 notices, which, according to them, were issued under Section 411 of the Kerala Municipalities Act (for short 'the Act').

¶42

The Tribunal, however, took the view that these are notices were not issued under Section 411 of the Act, but under Section 215 of the Act and that, therefore, such orders are not amenable to the appellate jurisdiction as provided under Section 509(7) of the Act.

¶43

I have heard Sri.Shinod.G.P., the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.K.Sunil, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶44

A reading of Section 215 of the Act would show that the power vested in the Municipality therein is to procure and dispose of property in certain events and in a certain manner. Exts.P1 to P7, exfacie, show that these notices were issued to

¶45

W.P.(C) No.31689 of 2010

¶46

¶47

evict the petitioners squarely on the ground that the building is in a dilapidated state and therefore, requires to be reconstructed. I have no doubt that this could have been done only under the powers granted by Section 411 of the Act.

¶48

In view of this, I set aside Ext.P10 order of the Tribunal and remit the matter to it for de novo consideration after hearing all the parties as mandated under law.

¶49

To facilitate a fresh hearing, I direct the petitioners to appear before the Tribunal on 28.11.2016 and the Tribunal shall, thereafter, try to dispose of the matter within a period of two months thereafter.

¶50

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶51

In the nature of the facts and circumstances, I make no order as to costs and the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

¶52

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶53

stu

P.Vijayakumar v. Pathanamthitta Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Vijayakumar v. Pathanamthitta Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Cochin Cadalas Private Ltd. Vs Chief Engineer

S. Shaik Musthafa Vs Smt. Jayalakshmi

Sebastian Chokkattu Vs the Special Thasildar (La)

G.P.Augustine Vs State

Sophia A.S Vs Union of India

Jabir V.S. Vs the Deputy General Manager (Hr)