The petitioner challenged the construction of a compound wall alleging it encroached on a pathway. The court held that since the plan was approved with a 3 metre width, the petitioner could not claim wider width and the petition was dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 650 of 2016 (E)
PETITIONER :
PRAVEEN KUMAR, AGED 38, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, POOVATH HOUSE, AKG ROAD, THRIKKAKARA, EDAPALLY P.O., PIN-682 024.
BY ADV. SRI.K.L.JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S):
1. ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
NEERIKODE P.O., ALUVA-683 511
2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE ALANGAD, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM-683 511
3. KUNJU MUHAMMED, AGED 89, S/O.ALIYAR, NADUVILAPARAMBU, ADIYIRUTHI ROAD, KARINGATHURUTHU, KONGURPALLY P.O., ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARAVUR-683 525
R1 BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN R2 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MANURAJ R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
sts
WP(C).No. 650 of 2016 (E)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
| EXT.P1. | TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO.5175/2014 |
|---|---|
| EXT.P2. | TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20/7/2015 ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY, ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH |
| EXT.P3. | TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE PANCHAYATH SHOWING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPLAINT |
| EXT.P4. | TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 5/1/2015 UNDER RTI ACT |
| EXT.P5. | TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 5/1/2016 ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY, ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH |
| EXT.P6. | TRUE COPY OF THE BOUNDARY SEPARATING THE PROPERTY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE PANCHAYATH ROAD. |
| RESPONDE ----------------- |
NT(S)' EXHIBITS ------------------------ |
| EXT.R1(A) | TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19/12/2015 |
| EXT.R1(B) | TRUE COPY OF THE RETURNED COVER FROM THE PETITIONER |
| EXT.R3(1) | TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ROAD REGISTER OF THE ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH SHOWING THE WIDTH OF THE DISPUTED ROAD. |
| EXT.R3(2) | TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 19/12/2015 |
| EXT.R3(3) | TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE COMPOUND WALL APPROVED BY THE PANCHAYATH |
| EXT.R3(4) | TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, DATED 15/02/2016 |
| EXT.R3(5) | TRUE COPY OF THE COMPOUND WALL SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT R3(4) |
| EXT.R3(6) | TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 15/02/2015. |
| /TRUE COPY/ | |
| P.A.TO JUDGE |
sts
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
-----------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 650 of 2016 (E)
-----------------------------------------Dated: 16th December, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved with the construction of a compound wall by the 3rd respondent, which, it is alleged, is encroaching upon the pathway vested with the Panchayat. The petitioner's contention is that the
pathway has a 4 metre width.
W.P.(C) No. 650/2016
-2-
With the above observation, the writ petition would stand dismissed. No Costs.
Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
jjj 16/12/16
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition challenging the width of a pathway allowed can be entertained when the plan was approved with a 3 metre width.
Whether the Panchayat can look into the width of the pathway after the plan has been approved.
PRAVEEN KUMAR
ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH
VILLAGE OFFICER
KUNJU MUHAMMED
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
