Allowed

Alamma Jacob v. Thiruvalla Municipality

Kerala HC26 Feb 2018OP(C)/422/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala ordered that directions from a previous judgment and Division Bench order governing resettlement and license fees apply to the present petitioner. The Court granted two weeks for the petitioner to vacate her premises, take over new accommodation, and coordinate a single-day or extended shifting process under municipal supervision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted two weeks to vacate premises and shift to new accommodation; Municipality to supervise shifting process and hand over new key only after old key handed over.

Alamma Jacob Vs Thiruvalla Municipality — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1939

¶5

OP(C).No. 422 of 2018

¶6

CMA 1/2017 of SUB COURT, THIRUVALLA

¶7

PETITIONER/APPELLANT/PETITIONER-PLAINTIFF:

¶8

ALAMMA JACOB, W/O.LATE JACOB NINAN, AGED 73 YEARS, JJT HOUSE, KAVUMBHAGOM POST, THIRUVALLA TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.KOSHY GEORGE SRI.P.C.HARIDAS

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT-DEFENDANT:

¶11

THIRUVALLA MUNICIPALITY, THIRUVALLA P.O,THIRUVALL TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY - 689 101.

¶12

R1 BY SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND, SC

¶13

THIS OP (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

PBS

¶15

OP(C).No. 422 of 2018 (O)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.395/16 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA.
EXHIBIT P1(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO.395/16 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, THIRUVALLA.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LEASE DEED NO. 3133/2009 OF THIRUVALLA SRO.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 16-07-2016 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION TO I.A NO.2291/16 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 16-06-2016.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 20-06-2016.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.S NO.382/84 DT. 30.3.1985.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 26-11-2016 I.A NO. 2291/16 IN O.S NO.395/16 ON THE FILES OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT THIRUVALLA.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.24843/2016.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CMA NO.1/2017 OF THE SUBORDINATE JUDG'S COURT, THIRUVALLA.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT R(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 31/8/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.C NO. 24843 OF 2016(E)
EXHIBIT R(B)	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/12/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.A. NO. 2395 OF 2016.
EXHIBIT R(C)	TRUE COPY OF THE DEED DATED 30/10/2009 EXECUTED BY ONE SRI. V.T.SAMUEL (ROOM NO. 4)
EXHIBIT R(D)	TRUE COPY OF THE DEED DATED 30/10/2009 EXECUTED BY ONE SMT.PRASANNA KUMARI AMMA (ROOM NO.9).
EXHIBIT R(E)	TRUE COPY OF THE DEED DATED 30/10/2009 EXECUTED BY ONE SRI.VARGHESE JOHN (ROOM NO.11)

¶21

OP(C).No. 422 of 2018 (O)

¶22

EXHIBIT R(F) TRUE SRI.N	COPY OF THE DEED .S. VASUDEVAN PIL	DATED 18/01/2010 EXECUTED BY ONE LAI (ROOM NO. 3)
EXHIBIT R(G) TRUE SRI.	COPY OF THE DEED SUDHAKARA SHENOY	DATED 13/1/2010 EXECUTED BY ONE (ROOM NO. 10)
EXHIBIT R(H) TRUE SRI.	COPY OF THE DEED CHARLES (ROOM NO.	DATED 18/1/2010 EXECUTED BY ONE 6).
EXHIBIT R(I) TRUE SRI.	COPY OF THE DEED BIJI VARGHESE (RO	DATED 1/4/2012 EXECUTED BY ONE OM NO. 6)
EXHIBIT R(J) TRUE SMT.M	COPY OF THE DEED ARIAMMA ALEX (ROO	DATED 1/4 /2011 EXECUTED BY ONE M NO.2)

/TRUE COPY/

PA TO JUDGE

PBS

3/3/2018

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶28

O.P.(C) No.422 of 2018

¶29

Dated this the 26^th day of February, 2018

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

The prayers in this Original Petition (Civil) are as

¶32

follows:

¶33

i) To call for the records leading up to Ext.P11 and set aside Ext.P9 order and P11 judgment.

¶34

ii) To direct the Munsiff Court, Thiruvalla to reconsider I.A. No.2291/2016 in O.S. No.395/16 and allow the same, as prayed for.

¶35

iii) To grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of the petitioner.

¶36

This Court has heard Sri. P.C. Haridas, learned

¶37

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. S.Subhash Chand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Thiruvalla Municipality, in extenso.

¶38

O.P.(C) No.422 of 2018 -2-

¶39

Sri. S. Subhash Chand, learned Standing Counsel

¶40

appearing for the respondent Thiruvalla Municipality has submitted on the basis of pleadings on record as furnished in the detailed counter affidavit filed in this Original Petition that the matter in issue is fully covered against the petitioner herein as per Ext.P10/Ext.R(a) judgment dated 31.08.2016 rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.24843 of 2016 and connected case, which in turn, has been fully affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Ext.R(b) judgment dated 16.12.2016 in W.A. No.2395 of 2016 and that the petitioners in the above proceedings are persons who are identically situated as the present petitioner herein and that this Court has upheld in that judgment the offer made by the respondent Thiruvalla Municipality to all the licencees including the present petitioner would be given alternative accommodation in a nearby place in the very

¶41

O.P.(C) No.422 of 2018 -3-

¶42

same municipal market in order to enable the Municipality to demolish the existing building, (in which those licencees were earlier accommodated) and to reconstruct a new building. Further that the licencees including the petitioner herein and other petitioners in Ext.P10/Ext.R(a) judgment would be given accommodation in the newly constructed building on the basis of revised licence fees that has been permitted in terms of Ext.P10/Ext.R(a) judgment. Sri. P.C. Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner had earlier sought adjournment to enable him to get specific instructions from the petitioner as to whether the O.P.(C) could be withdrawn in the light of the aforesaid undertaking and assurance made by the respondent Municipality in the counter affidavit.

¶43

Today when this matter was taken up for consideration, Sri. P.C. Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court may pass necessary

¶44

O.P.(C) No.422 of 2018 -4-

¶45

orders to ensure that the directions in Ext.P10/Ext.R(a)

¶46

judgment, as confirmed in Ext.R(b) Division Bench judgment, may be made applicable to the case of the petitioner also. Sri. S. Subhash Chand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Thiruvalla Municipality would fully agree to such course of action.

¶47

Accordingly, it is ordered in the interest of justice that the orders and directions that have already been rendered by this Court in Ext.P10/Ext.R(a) judgment as confirmed in Ext.R(b) Division Bench judgment of this Court will govern the case of the petitioner herein as well. The petitioner's counsel submits that this Court may direct the respondent Thiruvalla Municipality to grant two weeks' time to the petitioner to enable her to vacate the premises and to shift over to the premises which are newly and temporarily offered by the respondent Thiruvalla Municipality. The

¶48

O.P.(C) No.422 of 2018 -5-

¶49

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Thiruvalla Municipality submitted that this Court may grant two weeks' time in that regard by issuing necessary protective orders so as to safeguard the interest of the respondent Municipality also.

¶50

Accordingly, it is ordered that the petitioner is given two weeks' time from today to vacate the present premises as aforestated. To alleviate the apprehensions raised by Sri. P.C. Haridas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. S. Subhash Chand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Municipality would fairly submit on the basis of the instructions that the respondent Municipality would take necessary steps to ensure that the officials of the respondent Thiruvalla Municipality would supervise the process of vacating the premises by the petitioner in order to enable her to shift over to the newly offered premises and

¶51

O.P.(C) No.422 of 2018 -6-

¶52

after such process, the petitioner should hand over the key of the present premises to the authorised official concerned of the Thiruvalla Municipality. Both parties should co-ordinate action in that regard, so that the shifting from the old premises to the new premises is effected within one day, as far as practicable. If for any reasons, the shifting process can be effected only in more than one day, then the officials of the respondent Municipality will dispense that process in such a way that they facilitate the opening of the new premises on the mutually fixed days and by the evening of the day in which the shifting process is not completed, the officials of the respondent Municipality could lock up the new premises by the evening of that day and could retain the key, etc. The key of the new premise need be handed over by the officials of the respondent Municipality to the petitioner, only after she actually hands over the key of the old premise,

¶53

O.P.(C) No.422 of 2018 -7-

¶54

on vacating it, etc. Well co-ordinated and pre-planned steps should be taken by both sides to ensure compliance of these directions. The process in this regard shall be completed by both sides within the aforesaid two weeks' period.

¶55

With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.

¶56

Sd/-

¶57

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶58

bpr

¶59

//TRUE COPY//

¶60

P.A. TO JUDGE

Alamma Jacob v. Thiruvalla Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alamma Jacob v. Thiruvalla Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Antony a P Vs John Manavalan

Nabeezath Beevi Vs P.S. Ahammed Khan (Died)

Ajith Kumar Vs the Secretary, Tanur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Lt. Col. R.Sivadas Vs M. Sreeraj

Thankamani Vs the Vadakkekara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. NO.3131

Vijayalakshmi Vs Amminiyamma