Dismissed

Appukkuttan Pillai v. the Secretary,Chengannur Municipality

Kerala HC2 Nov 2016WP(C)/5635/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition filed regarding unauthorized well construction as infructuous after the 3rd respondent obtained a User Certificate regularizing the structure. None appeared for the parties when the matter was called for hearing.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous on the ground that the well stands regularized by a User Certificate issued by the Municipality.

Appukkuttan Pillai Vs the Secretary,Chengannur… — Municipal and Town Planning | 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 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/11TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 5635 of 2009 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SRI.APPUKKUTTAN PILLAI, AGED 69 YEARS, S/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, KOKKAPARAMBIL,THITTAMEL, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR SRI.PRATHEESH P.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. CHENGANNUR MUNCIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS,CHENGANNUR.

¶11

2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR.

¶12

3. M/S.PUNCHONI GARDENS APARTMENTS OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, REP; BY ITS PRESIDENT MR.JOHN VARGHEESE, PUNCHONI GARDENS VILLAS & APARTMENTS, NEAR GOVT., HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THITTAMEL, CHANGANNUR.

¶13

R1 BY SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN, SC R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VINEETHA HARIRAJ R3 BY ADVS. SRI.C.S.DIAS

¶14

SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

msv/

¶17

K. Vinod Chandran,J.

¶18

--------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.5635 of 2009-Y

¶19

¶20

Dated, this the 02^nd day of November, 2016

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

None appears for the petitioner or the respondent

¶23

when the matter was called for hearing.

¶24

The petitioner was aggrieved with the construction of a well carried on by the 3^rd respondent which was alleged to be without any sanction from the Municipality and in violation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules.

¶25

The learned Counsel for the Municipality submitted

¶26

that the construction of the well was without permission from Municipality and that the Municipality had issued a shop memo. Noticing the said contention, this Court by order dated 25.02.2009 directed respondents 1 and 2 ensure that the stop memo is strictly enforced against the 3^rd respondent.

¶27

The 3^rd respondent has, subsequently, appeared and filed a counter affidavit, in which it is admitted that the 3^rd respondent had dug the well without getting sanction from the

¶28

WP(C) No.5635 of 2009 - 2 -

¶29

Municipality due to ignorance of such a provision. Subsequently the 3^rd respondent had filed an application and it is stated that the 1^st respondent has issued a User Certificate and the well dug now stands regularised. The User Certificate is also produced as Exhibit R3-1.

¶30

In the above circumstances, nothing survives in the writ petition and the same is dismissed as infructuous.

¶31

Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶32

Vku/-

¶33

[ true copy ]

Appukkuttan Pillai v. the Secretary,Chengannur Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Appukkuttan Pillai v. the Secretary,Chengannur Municipality

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

Krishnankutty @ Abraham Vs State of Kerala

Palara Mohammed Kunhi Vs Valanchery Grama Panchayath

A.R.Rajamma Vs the District Collector

Anandakumar Vs Bini K.U.

Bhavana Ramesh Vs State of Kerala

Nazer and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others