Disposed

M.P.Narayanan Nambisan v. T.P.Satheesan

Kerala HC12 Feb 2018Con.Case(C)/496/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition, the High Court clarified that insofar as a septic tank under a building by the petitioner's neighbour, the petitioner can seek remedies if the construction is regularized. The court closed the petition with these directions.

What did the court decide?

The petition is closed with a direction to clarify that remedies remain open if the unauthorized construction is regularized and aggried.

M.P.Narayanan Nambisan Vs T.P.Satheesan — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.ANTONY DOMINIC &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶5

MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 23RD MAGHA, 1939

¶6

Con.Case(C).No. 496 of 2016 IN WA. 1521/2015 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1521/2015 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 10.09.2015

¶7

PETITIONER/PETITIONER:

¶8

M.P.NARAYANAN NAMBISAN, AGED 72 YEARS, S/O.P.KRISHNAN NAMBISAN, KOUSTUBAM, VENGERI P.O., KOZHIKODE 673 010.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.NIRMAL.S

¶10

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1&3 IN W.A.:

¶11

T.P.SATHEESAN SECRETARY, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE 673 001.

¶12

MOHAMMED HANEESH SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT 695 001.

¶13

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.D.BABU, SC, KOZHIKODE CORPORATION R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)

¶14

R BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDAKUMAR BABU

¶15

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

CONT.CASE (C)NO.496/2016

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶19

ANNEXURE A1: CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.1521/15 DATED 10.9.2015.

¶20

ANNEXURE A2: TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESS TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.10.2015.

¶21

RESPONDENTS ANNEXURES:

¶22

ANNEXURE R1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 25-3-2016 ISSUED TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN W.A.1521/2015.

¶23

ANNEXURE R1(b): TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 26-5-2016 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

ANNEXURE R1(c): TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7-7-2016 ISSUED BY THIS RESPONDENT.

¶25

ANNEXURE R1(d): TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN WITH REGARD TO THE CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT APPEALS.

¶26

ANNEXURE R1(e): PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN THE WRIT APPEALS AND THE PRESENT STATUS AFTER DEMOLITION OF THE SAME.

¶27

// TRUE COPY //

¶28

P.S. TO JUDGE

¶29

ANTONY DOMINIC, C.J. & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.

¶30

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶31

Cont. Case (C) No.496 of 2016

¶32

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶33

Dated this the 12^th day of February, 2018

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Antony Dominic, C.J.

¶36

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior

¶37

Counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶38

This petition is filed alleging disobedience of the directions contained in the judgment in W.A.1521/15. After various orders of this court and the removal of the irregular constructions, the surviving grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the septic tank underneath a building constructed by

¶39

his neighbour Mr.Radhakrishnanan. Insofar as the septic tank is concerned, in the affidavit dated 29^th January 2018 filed by the first respondent, it is stated thus:

¶40

“Since the constructions effected by the wrong doer inside his building is not of serious in nature and since the same would not affect the petitioner in any manner, this respondent can regularize the said construction as per Rule 146(4), Chapter 20 of

¶41

Cont. Case (C) No.496 of 2016

¶42

: 2 :

¶43

K.M.B.R. after accepting penalty. The wrong doer has submitted a letter to this respondent on 22/1/2018 stating, that he would prefer an application within 15 days to regularise the construction made inside his building.”

¶44

In the light of the possibility of getting the unauthorised construction regularised, all that needs to be done in this petition is to clarify that in the event the unauthorised construction is regualrised and if the petitioner is aggrieved thereby, it would be open to him to seek his remedies in accordance with law.

¶45

With these directions, the petition is closed.

¶46

Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶47

Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE

¶48

jes

M.P.Narayanan Nambisan v. T.P.Satheesan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P.Narayanan Nambisan v. T.P.Satheesan

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

Beenamma Vs the Director General of Police

M/S. Lifeline Super Specialty Hospital Vs the State of Kerala

George Pouvathil Vs State of Kerala

State Bank of India, Rasmecc Vs M/S.Narniat Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

M.v.Alias Vs the Kerala State Human Rights Commission

K.A. Joseph Vs the Secretary to Government