Dismissed

Jayaraj S. v. Kadapra Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC7 Jul 2016WP(C)/8176/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a demolition notice. Finding an alternative remedy of appeal available, the court held it would not embark on fact adjudication and closed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands closed leaving the alternative remedy of appeal open.

What the court decided

Jayaraj S. Vs Kadapra Grama Panchayath — Land Acquisition | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2016/16TH ASHADHA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 8176 of 2016 (V)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

JAYARAJ S.

¶8

UZHATHIL HOUSE, PARUMALA PO, 689 626.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.R.GIREESH VARMA SRI.SAVIO DAVID MUNDACKAL

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

KADAPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH GRAM PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KADAPRA, NIRAOM PO, 689 621, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

R-R BY ADV. SRI.T.P.PRADEEP

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-07-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No. 8176 of 2016 (V)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

P1TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KADAPRA

¶18

P2(A)- TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 31.12.2010, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.

¶19

P2(B)- TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 8.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶20

P2(C)- TRUE COPY OF THE THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 10.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT

¶21

P3TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED TO THE FATHER OF THE PETITIONER DATED 11.2.2016 BY THE RESPONDENT

¶22

P4TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT DATED 19.2.2016

¶23

P5TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATD 22.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶24

P6TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED ON 25.2.2016 TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA

¶25

P7TRUE COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION FILED IN OS NO.78/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶27

EXT.R1 COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.11.2.16 SUBMITTED TO THE RDO, THIRUVALLA

// TRUE COPY //

P.A TO JUDGE

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.(C) No.8176 of 2016 - V

¶34

====================== Dated this the 07^th day of July, 2016

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition against

¶37

Ext.P5 notice alleging that there is absolutely no clarity as to what is the violation committed by the petitioner insofar as the demolition directed as per Ext.P5.

¶38

A reading of the notice at Ext.P5 does not support the stand of the petitioner. It has been specifically stated in the notice that what was existing in the petitioner's property was a shed with thatched roof, which had the Panchayat number V/90 and the corresponding new number of VIII/227. The petitioner's contention is that the number VIII/227 is of the building which had an earlier number of V/92/A.

¶39

The learned Counsel for the Panchayat submits that the petitioner's specific contention is that the residential building was built in 1990. If that be true, there could not have been a number granted in the year 1992, argues the learned Counsel.

¶40

¶41

W.P.(C) No.8176 of 2016 - V

¶42

The respondent Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that V/92A was re-numbered as VIII/227 and belonged to the father of the petitioner, which building was specifically constructed for installation of machines for brick manufacturing unit. Hence going by the counter affidavit of the respondent, the building which was numbered as V/92/A, being one for brick manufacturing unit, there can be no contention that a residential building was built in the year 1990.

¶43

In the context of the disputes raised and also finding that there is an alternative remedy available, of appeal,the petitioner would have to avail the same. This Court would not endeavour to embark upon a fact adjudication, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶44

Leaving open that remedy, the writ petition would stand closed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶47

SB/07/07/2016

¶48

// true copy // P.A to Judge

Jayaraj S. v. Kadapra Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Jayaraj S. v. Kadapra Grama Panchayath

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

The Mlamally Tea Estates Ltd. Vs Presiding Officer,;Labour Court,Ekm.

S Raheem Vs Kandanassery Grama Panchayath

Jasmine Xevior M.L Vs the Karumkulam Grama Panchayat

Abidha Beegum V.S. Vs Aligarh Muslim University

Giresh P.G. Vs the Secretary, Nayarambalam Grama Panchayat

S. Baby Vs Secretary, Local Self Government