Dismissed

C.Sakkeer v. Parappanangadi Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC9 Nov 2016WP(C)/8157/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tenants leased to the Panchayat challenged an eviction order issued after the building was deemed dilapidated and dangerous. The Court rejected the challenge, noting the Panchayat's right to act based on its engineer's report for public safety, but granted a three-month extension to vacate.

What did the court decide?

Two buildings granted three months to vacate; thereafter eviction enforceable without further notice.

C.Sakkeer Vs Parappanangadi Grama Panchayat — 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 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/18TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 8157 of 2014 (T)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

C. SAKKEER, S/O. ABDULLA, AGED 40 YEARS, CHEMPAYIL HOUSE, P.O. NEDUVA, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 303.

¶8

¶9

2. P. MUNEER, S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 38 YEARS, PULLADAN HOUSE, EXCHANGE ROAD, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶10

3. PADMINI, W/O. VASU, AGED 48 YEARS, UNNIKANDAYIL HOUSE, VALLIKKUNNU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶11

N.SUBRAMANYAN, S/O. UNNAMAN, AGED 67 YEARS, NAMBIDI HOUSE, KOOTTILANGADI, TANUR POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶12

¶13

5. C.K. KUNHIMOHAMMED, CHARUPADIKKAL KORAT, PALLIKKAL POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶14

SAINABHA, W/O. KUNHIKOYMUTTY NAHA, AGED 45 YEARS, KOLARIKKAL, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶15

¶16

V. KUNHALI, S/O. SAIDALI, AGED 65 YEARS, VELLODATHIL HOUSE, VALLIKKUNNU, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶17

¶18

ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O. SAIDALAVI, AGED 40 YEARS, KONIYATH HOUSE, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶19

¶20

9. P. ABDUL HAMEED, S/O. SYED MOHAMMED, AGED 54 YEARS, POTTAMMAL, CHETTIPPADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶21

WP(C).No. 8157 of 2014 (T)

¶22

10. MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS, PAMBANTAKATH, PARAPPANANGADI, NEDUVA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶23

11. ABDULLAKUTTY, S/O. MUHAMMED NAHA, AGED 60 YEARS, PULIKKAKATH, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶24

12. KHADEEJA, W/O. ANISUDEEN NAHA, AGED 38 YEARS, CHAKKAYIL HOUSE, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶25

13. C.K. BHASKARAN, S/O. APPUKUTTY, AGED 65 YEARS, CHERIYA KOLOTH, NEDUVA POST, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶26

14. SAIDALAVI, S/O. KUNHIMOHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS, VELLADAN HOUSE, NEDUVA POST, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶27

BY SRI.P.K.SURESH KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE. ADV. SRI.K.P.SUDHEER.

¶28

RESPONDENT(S):

¶29

1. PARAPPANANGADI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 303, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶30

ADDL. R2 & R3 IMPLEADED

¶31

2. PARAPPANANGADI MUNICIPALITY, PARAPPANANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 303, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶32

3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD SECTION, PARAPPANANGADI MUNICIPALITY, PARAPPANANGADI-676 303, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶33

ADDL. R2 & R3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 09/11/2016 IN I.A. NO.17090/2016.

¶34

BY ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ.

¶35

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

¶36

rs.

¶37

WP(C).No. 8157 of 2014 (T)

¶38

APPENDIX

¶39

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶40

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A.5.1535/14 DATED 13/02/2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶41

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.39 DATED 13/02/2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶42

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.82 DATED 05/03/2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶43

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A5 3885/14 DATED 06/03/2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.

¶44

EXT.P5 PHOTOGRAPHS (4 NOS.) SHOWING THE BUILDING.

¶45

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶46

EXT.R1A COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER LSGD DATED 04/03/2014.

¶47

EXT.R1B COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE EXCISE INSPECTOR PARAPPANANGADI DATED 06/03/2014.

¶48

EXT.R1C COPY OF THE NEW PAPER REPORT PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY, HAVING ITS EDITION AT MALAPPURAM DATED 05/03/2014.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶53

W.P.(C) No. 8157 of 2014 (T)

¶54

Dated: 9^th November, 2016

¶55

J U D G M E N T

¶56

The petitioners are tenants of the respondent Grama Panchayat, who are conducting various businesses in the leased out premises of the Grama Panchayat. The petitioners in the writ petition contend that they were asked to pay the enhanced lease rent which they deposited by Ext.P2 receipts and the very next day Ext.P4 notice for eviction was ordered.

¶57

The Panchayat, which is now converted to a Municipality, has filed a counter affidavit. The Panchayat contends that the building itself is in a dilapidated condition and the continuance of the tenants in the building raise a serious apprehension of danger to the life and limb of the persons frequenting

¶58

W.P.(C) No. 8157/2014

¶59

-2-

¶60

the premises.

¶61

The Panchayat has produced the paper report of the year 2014 as Ext.R1(c). The Panchayat also produced Ext.R1(a), the report the Assistant Engineer, LSGD Section dated 04.03.2014, wherein it was recommended that the occupants of the building should be evicted and the building itself should be demolished for reason of the danger apprehended to the general public. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would, in fact, submit that there could be no construction made in the property since the Panchayat would have to first obtain a consent from the Railways, since the plot is situated very near to the railway station.

¶62

The mere fact that a construction cannot be conducted, cannot stop the Panchayat from taking action, based on the report of the Assistant Engineer,

¶63

W.P.(C) No. 8157/2014

¶64

-3-

¶65

shown at Ext.R1(a). There is an apprehension of danger and despite the fact that the petitioners have been continuing for the last several years, their rights should bow down to the larger public interest. It cannot also be said that due to the fact of no such mishap having occurred in the intervening period, when this writ petition was pending here; there would be no cause for concern in future also, of such a mishap occurring. This Court, sitting in the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not interfere with the policy decision of the Panchayat, which has acted on the report of the technical staff attached to the Panchayat.

¶66

In such circumstance, considering the fact that the petitioners have been continuing for long, the petitioners shall be granted three months' time to vacate the premises, failing which, after the expiry of

¶67

W.P.(C) No. 8157/2014

¶68

-4-

¶69

the three months, the Panchayat would be entitled to evict the petitioners without any further notice. It is also submitted that Ext.R1(a) is only with respect to one building and there are two separate buildings, one concreted and the other asbestos roofed. It is for the Panchayat to decide whether both the buildings have to be demolished or one alone. Those who are occupying the asbestos roofed building could very well approach the Panchayat with a representation, which should be considered on merits and if decided against them, would be granted the very same three months' time as granted in the case of others.

¶70

The writ petition is dismissed with the above directions. No Costs.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶73

jjj 10/11/16

C.Sakkeer v. Parappanangadi Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Sakkeer v. Parappanangadi Grama Panchayat

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

M.Unnikrishnan Vs K.K.Manoj, Secretary, Kottakkal Municipality

Babu V.G Vs Sake Ouger Hussain S.S

E.P.Raghavan Pilla Vs Hairunisa M.K

Suja John Vs Mohandas

Mohammed Niyas Vs the Income Tax Commissioner

James K.Joseph Vs State of Kerala