Dismissed

M.Abdul Majeed v. the Vithura Grama Panchayat and Others

Kerala HC30 May 2016WP(C)/4172/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Ombudsman's order closing a complaint regarding alleged maladministration in issuing a building permit. The High Court held that subsequent inspection proved construction was on petitioner's land, not Puramboke land, finding no basis for allegations. No interference required.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with liberty to file appeal against the permit (if not yet filed, which it had not).

M.Abdul Majeed Vs the Vithura Grama Panchayat and… — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

MONDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016/9TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 4172 of 2011 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

M. ABDUL MAJEED, S/O.MAITHEEN KANNU, AGED 44 YEARS, BLOCK NO.75, EX-SERVICEMEN COLONY, KALLAR P.O., VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN SMT.P.G.BABITHA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S) :

¶10

1. THE VITHURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,, VITHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT – 695551.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY, VITHURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VITHURA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695551

¶12

3. B.SURESHKUMAR, 'SURESH BHAVAN', KALLAR, P.O.VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695551

¶13

4. N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, FORMERLY WARD MEMBER, KALLAR WARD, VITHURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O. VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695551

¶14

5. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, 'SAPHALLYAM' COMPLEX, 3RD FLOOR, TRIDA BUILDING, PALAYAM, UNIVERSITY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695034.

¶15

...2/-

¶16

WP(C).No. 4172 of 2011 (V) -2-

¶17

6. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

7. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, VITHURA VILLAGE OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 551.

¶19

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.PRAVEEN R3 BY ADV. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA R5 TO R7 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. MANZOOR ALI

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

...3/-

¶23

WP(C).No. 4172 of 2011 (V)

¶24

APPENDIX

¶25

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :

¶26

EXT.P1	: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT ON 11.6.2010.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ON 19.6.2010.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUMITTED BEFORE THE R.D.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ON 19.6.2010.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FURNISHED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER DATED 21.6.2010.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE FIFTH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FIFTH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8	TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED STATEMENT BY THE PETITIONER.
EXT.P9	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FIFTH RESPONDENT DATED 7.12.2010.

¶27

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

P.V.ASHA J.

--------------------------------------------------

¶33

W.P.(C) No.4172 of 2011

¶34

--------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2016

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The grievance of the petitioner herein is that though

¶37

he had approached the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions filing Ext.P5 complaint, alleging mal-administration on the part of the second respondent, in respect of a construction which was being carried out by the 4^th respondent, the Ombudsman without entering into any finding on his plea as to mal-administration, closed the complaint by Ext.P9 order.

¶38

According to the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent had issued building permit to the 4^th respondent, when a stop memo issued by the Village Officer was in force, seeing that the construction was being carried out in a Puramboke land in collusion with the 2^nd respondent and the Panchayath.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶40

W.P.(C) No.4172 of 2011

¶41

¶42

learned counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

¶43

Learned Government Pleader on instructions submitted that subsequent to the stop memo, the property was inspected and got measured when it was found that the construction was being carried out in the property of the 4^th respondent and not in a Puramboke land.

¶44

However, by Ext.P9, the Ombudsman closed the proceedings observing that the 4^th respondent was already given building permit and therefore the construction cannot be said to be unauthorized. The petitioner was given liberty to file appeal against the permit. But petitioner did not file any appeal. Petitioner asserts that the construction was carried out in collusion with the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, encroaching the Puramboke land. The learned Government Pleader on instructions from the revenue authorities submitted that on inspection and measurement being conducted by

¶45

W.P.(C) No.4172 of 2011

¶46

¶47

them, the construction was found to be in the property of the petitioner and not in puramboke and hence the allegation of petitioner was found incorrect.

¶48

In these circumstances, I do not find any basis for the allegations raised in the writ petition. Therefore, though Ext.P9 order passed by the Ombudsman does not deal with the allegation of petitioner with respect to maladministration, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶49

Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.

¶50

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶51

AS/31/5/16

M.Abdul Majeed v. the Vithura Grama Panchayat and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Abdul Majeed v. the Vithura Grama Panchayat and Others

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

Bhargavikutty K. Vs State of Kerala

P.C.Supriya Vs State of Kerala

Sreenivasan Vs the Kongad Grama Panchayath and Another

Puthussery Parvathy Vs the Union of India & Others

B.S.Sheeja Vs State of Kerala

Dr.P.Balakrishnan Vs the State of Kerala and Others