Disposed

Kunjhimohammed v. Thalikulam Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC14 Dec 2016WP(C)/39739/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a construction petitioner against a notice by the Village Panchayath was disposed of without deciding merits. The Court directed the petitioner to file objections within a week and the authority to consider them within two weeks. The Writ Petition stood disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner must file objections to Ext.P3 within one week; Respondent Secretary must consider such objections within two weeks thereof.

Kunjhimohammed Vs Thalikulam Grama Panchayath — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/23RD AGRAHAYANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 39739 of 2016 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

KUNJHIMOHAMMED AGED 65 YEARS, S/O ABDUL REHIMAN, ARAKKAVEETTIL HOUSE, P.O THALIKKULAM, THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.K.M.NASARUDHEEN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THALIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH RE. BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYATH OFFICE, THALIKULAM, THRISSUR,PIN- 680564.

¶11

2. SECRETARY, THALIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH PANCHAYATH OFFICE, THALIKULAM, THRISSUR,PIN- 680564.

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

MLG

¶14

WP(C).No. 39739 of 2016 (N)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

----------------------P1 A TRUE COPY OF OF THE DOCUMENT NO. 791/2008 OF SRO VATANAPPILLY DATED 25/03/2008. P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH IN RESPECT OF LODGE BUILDING AND TOILET BLOCK CONSTRUCTED BY THE PETITIONER. P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. A1-5953/2016 DATED 25/10/2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶18

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL -----------------------

//TRUE COPY//

P.S TO JUDGE

MLG

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.(C) No.39739 of 2016 - N

¶25

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

¶26

Dated this the 14^th day of December, 2016

¶27

J U D G M E N T

¶28

The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P3 issued by the Secretary of the Panchayath. Thea petitioner submits that he has proceeded with construction as per Ext.P2 permit. However, Ext.P2 is a plan, without any approval from the Secretary.

¶29

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶30

the petitioner has obtained a permit for the construction of the building. In any event, the petitioner has to file his objections to Ext.P3, which he shall do, within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and the Secretary shall consider the same and pass orders, within a period of two weeks therefrom. It is made clear that this Court has made any

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C) No.39739 of 2016 - N

¶33

observations on merits, which the respondent will consider, in

¶34

accordance with law.

¶35

The writ petition would stand disposed of.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

K. VINOD CHANDRAN,

JUDGE

SB/14/12/2016

// true copy //

P.A to Judge

Kunjhimohammed v. Thalikulam Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunjhimohammed v. Thalikulam 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

Biji Vijayan Vs District Collector

Harid Vs Karunagappally Grama

A.J.Walston Vs State of Kerala

Unnikrishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Nawas.P.S Vs District Collector

Ashraf Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer (R.D.O)