Dismissed

Poyyil Bhaskaran v. Valapattanam Grama Panchayat and Ors.

Kerala HC13 Jun 2017WP(C)/3526/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a notice directing demolition of a bunk shop constructed without permit. Court held the petitioner could not deny the shop lacked a license. The Court dismissed the writ petition with observations that if proceedings are concluded, no interim order is needed; otherwise, proceedings must be taken afresh by the Panchayat.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed. No Costs.

Poyyil Bhaskaran Vs Valapattanam Grama Panchayat and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/23RD JYAISHTA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 3526 of 2011 (M)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

POYYIL BHASKARAN, POYYIL HOUSE, NEAR OLD TOLL BOOTH,, VALAPATTANAM P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.ASHIK K.MOHAMMED ALI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. VALAPATTANAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT VALAPATTANAM, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-670 010.

¶11

2. THE OMBUDSMAN, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS KERALA, TRIDA BUILDING, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-695 045.

¶12

3. THE PANCHAYAT DIRECTOR, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-33.

¶13

R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.A.C.VIDHYA R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C).No. 3526 of 2011 (M)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

¶18

P1: TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY ISSUED BY THE UNITY COMPREHENSIVE HOSPITAL AND HEALTH PROMOTION CENTRE, MANGALORE.

¶19

P2: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 18.09.2010 GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶20

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 04.01.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶21

P4: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 31.01.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶22

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 31.01.2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶23

P6: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.22044/R4:1/10/LSGD DATED 24.07.2010 ISSUED BY THE LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT.

¶24

P7: TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO.3063/1991 OF BALIPATAM SUB REGISTRY DATED 10.12.1991

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶26

R1(A) PHOTOCOPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.64/2011/LSGD DATED 26.02.2011

¶27

R1(B) PHOTOCOPY OF THE BUILDING ASSESSMENT REGISTER FOR THE YEAR 2003-2004 TO 2007-08 OF WARD NO.5

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE

JJJ

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 3526 of 2011 (M)

¶33

Dated: 13^th June, 2017

¶34

The petitioner was before this Court aggrieved with Ext.P3 communication addressed to the petitioner directing demolition of the bunk shop existing in the property of the petitioner. The petitioner contends that the bunk shop was built long back, even before the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999, ('KMBR' for short) came into force or adopted by the Panchayat. It is also contended that there was no prior notice issued to the petitioner and hence Ext.P3 is bad for violation of principles of natural justice.

¶35

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing

¶36

for the respondent Panchayat. The Panchayat has also filed a detailed counter affidavit.

¶37

W.P.(C) No. 3526/2011

¶38

-2-

¶39

It has been submitted that the bunk shop itself was constructed without any building permit obtained from the Panchayat. The Panchayat asserts that even before the implementation of the KMBR, the Panchayat had adopted the Kerala Building Rules, 1984, and hence the petitioner cannot take a contention that the bunk shop was built when the KMBR had not come into force in the Panchayat. Further, the petitioner has not even taken a license to conduct the shop within the Panchayat, is the contention.

¶40

Considering the contentions raised in the counter affidavit, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the action initiated by the Panchayat. It is also to be noticed that though the writ petition was admitted long back, there was no interim order issued. If the proceedings have been concluded, definitely, there would be no consequence; but, however, if no

¶41

W.P.(C) No. 3526/2011

¶42

-3-

¶43

proceedings were taken against the bunk shop, by reason only of the pendency of the writ petition and if proceedings are intended to be taken, then, necessarily, proceedings will have to be taken afresh by the Panchayat.

¶44

The writ petition would stand dismissed with the above observations. No Costs.

¶45

Sd/K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶46

jjj 14/6/17

Poyyil Bhaskaran v. Valapattanam Grama Panchayat and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poyyil Bhaskaran v. Valapattanam Grama Panchayat and Ors.

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

Cheruthazham Panchayath Vs C.M.Damodaran

Selva Bricks Vs the Secretary, Karassery Grama Panchayat

Syed M.A and Another Vs Kottappady Grama Panchayath

K.T.Mohammed Kutty Vs Ramanattukara Grama Panchayat

Benny Joseph and Another Vs State of Kerala and Others

Muhammed Shihas Vs Regional Transport Officer