Dismissed
Vvutty Haji v. State of Kerala
Kerala HCWP(C)/2201/2010
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
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
TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017/28TH BHADRA, 1939
WP(C).No. 2201 of 2010 (A)
PETITIONER(S):
VAVUTTY HAJI, S/O.LATE KUNJALI, AGED 74 YEARS, CHERUVAYIL HOUSE, VIRUPPAKKA,, VAZHANI.P.O., WADAKKANCHERRY.
BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI
RESPONDENT(S):
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, WADAKKANCHERRY, THRISSUR.
3. TRICHUR CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS REPRESENTED ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THRISSUR.
4. S.M.SAIDALI, S/O. MOIDU, AGED 39 YEARS, SEVENKUZHIYIL HOUSE, VIRUPPAKKA, WADAKKACHERY,, THRISSUR.
*ADDL.R5 IMPLEADED ADDL.R5:- THEKKUMKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE THEKKUMKARA PANCHAYATH,THEKKUMKARA.
*ADDL.R5 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 05/6/2012 IN IA.NO.6879/2012.
TS
WP(C).No. 2201 of 2010 (A)
R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.C.VIDHYA R3 BY ADVS. SRI.K.ANAND SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN R4 BY ADVS. SMT.PREETHY KARUNAKARAN SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) ADDL.R5 BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-09-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
TS
WP(C).No. 2201 of 2010 (A)
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION REPORT IN O.S.NO.405 OF 2003 & IA.NO.1324/2003 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY,DATED 14.8.2003.
EXHIBIT P1(A):_-TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH.
EXHIBIT P2(A):- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S.NO.405 OF 2003 DATED 16.8.2003 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERRY.
EXHIBIT P4:- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15.2.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE LOCALITY BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,PWD(ROADS).
EXHIBIT P5:- A TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CONTEMPT CASE NO.114 OF 2012.
EXHIBIT P6:- A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 1.5.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE RESIDENTS OF WARD NO.3 OF VIRUPPAKKA.
EXHIBIT P7:- A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 3.5.2012 SUBMITTED BY THE KARSHAKA SANGHAM SECRETARY OF THALAPPALLY TALUK BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THEKKEKKARA PANCHAYATH.
EXHIBIT P8:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THEKKEKKARA,
EXHIBIT P9:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER AND THE CHAIRMAN, STANDING COMMITTEE OF GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THEKKEKKARA.
TS
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R4(A):_ TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS PRODUCED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT DATED NIL. EXHIBIT R4(B):- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT AND OTHERS DATED 27/1/2010.
/TRUE COPY/
PS TO JUDGE
TS
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
=====================
W.P.(C) No.2201 of 2010-A
======================== Dated this the 19th day of September, 2017
Judgment
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that she has no instructions in the matter.
respondent is trying to construct a drainage on the side of his property, which would cause water logging in the petitioner's property. There was an interim order directing the 2nd respondent to stop all the construction activities through the property of the petitioner and stay all construction works on the side of Vazhani-Wadakkanchery Road, pending disposal of
the writ petition. The additional 5th respondent, the Panchayat
2
W.P.(C) No.2201-2010
was also impleaded in the course of the proceedings. A mediation was also directed on 03.10.2012, which also did not fructify. The claim of the petitioner is against the construction carried on by the 4th respondent, which has to be agitated before a civil court.
The writ petition is closed, leaving open all the contentions of either parties to be agitated before the
appropriate forum.
Sd/- K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE
SB/20/09/2017
// true copy //
P.A to Judge
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the grievance regarding construction causing water logging can be adjudicated in a writ petition or must be agitated before a civil court.
Vavutty Haji
State of Kerala
Executive Engineer
Trichur Co-operative Spinning Mills
S.M. Saidali
Thekkumkara Grama Panchayath
K. Vinod Chandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court