Disposed

Vinija v. Kottuvally Panchayath

Kerala HC3 Jul 2018WP(C)/19510/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought demolition of illegal construction by co-owners pending a partition suit. The Court noted the Panchayat had issued a stop memo but held no further writ relief was needed, directing parties to proceed in the pending partition suit.

What did the court decide?

No order for demolition was granted; parties directed to approach the Munsiff's Court where the partition suit is pending.

Vinija Vs Kottuvally Panchayath — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 19510 of 2018

¶6

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER(S)

¶7

VINIJA, AGED 29 YEARS, D/O.LATE VINCENT, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, CHERAPPADAM KARA, THIRUMUPPAM, NEAR KSEB TRANSFORMER, ALANGAD VILLAGE, VARAPPUZHA P.O. NORTH PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 517.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.JAGAN ABRAHAM M.GEORGE SRI.P.JAYABAL MENON SMT.PRIYANKA GOPI

¶9

NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KOTTUVALLY PANCHAYATH, KOTTUVALLY, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN 683 518, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY, KOTTUVALLY PANCHAYATH, KOTTUVALLY, NORTH PARAVUR, PIN 683 518.

¶12

3. JANCY, AGED 53 YEARS, W/O.LATE VINCENT, KAITHARAN HOUSE, NEAR AYODHYA PRESS, EDAYATTUPARAMBU, KAITHARAM P.O., KOTTUAVALLY VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 519.

¶13

4. VINOJ, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O.LATE VINCENT, KAITHARAN HOUSE, NEAR AYODHYA PRESS, EDATYATTUPARAMBU, KAITHARAM P.O., KOTTUAVALLY VILLAGE, NORTH PARAVUR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683 519.

¶14

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH, S.C

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Msd. 04.07.2018

¶17

WP(C).No. 19510 of 2018 (K)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.4647/1992 OF SRO, NORTH PARAVUR. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN OS NO.559/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 IN O.S NO.559/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, NORTH PARAVUR. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 28-05-2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE RESPONDENTS 1 & 2. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPIES OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE PANCHAYAT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES:

¶21

ANNEXURE R1(A): A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 28.05.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. ANNEXURE R1(B): A TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO DATED 31.05.2018 TO STOP THE ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION UNDERTAKEN BY THE 3RD AND 4TH RESPONDENTS. ANNEXURE R1(C): A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF APPLICATION DATED 06.06.2018.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE

Msd.

04.07.2018

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶27

W.P.(C) No.19510 of 2018

¶28

Dated this the 3^rd day of July, 2018

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

¶31

i) Issue a writ of mandamus, other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to demolish the illegal construction made by respondents 3 and 4, without obtaining permission and approved building plan from the Panchayath, in the property covered by Exhibit P-1 Sale Deed.

¶32

ii) Direct respondents 1 and 2 to take appropriate action on the basis of Exhibit-P4 representation and to demolish the illegal construction made by respondents 3 and 4, without obtaining permission and approved building plan from the Panchayath, in the property covered by Exhibit P-1 Sale Deed.

¶33

iii) Grant such other reliefs as this Honourable Court shall deem just.

¶34

Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition

¶35

are as follows; petitioner is the co-owner of the property

¶36

W.P.(C) No. 19510 of 2018

¶37

¶38

covered by Ext.P1 sale deed bearing No.4647/1992 of SRO, North Paravur consequent to the inheritance on the death of her father. Petitioner has filed O.P.No.559/2016 before the Munsiff's Court, Nor9th Paravur seeking partition of the property, which is pending consideration. While so, 3^rd and 4^th respondents without securing partition of the property started construction of a new building in the property without obtaining permit or approved building plan from the Panchayat. Petitioner thereupon submitted Ext.P4 representation, however, no action was taken by respondents 1 and 2, which according to the petitioner, is due to the collusion exerted by and between the parties. Now respondents 3 and 4 are continuing with the illegal construction of the building. It is in this background, petitioner has filed this writ petition to secure the relief sought for in the writ petition .

¶39

A statement is filed by respondents 1 and 2 stating that, now respondents 1 and 2 have issued a stop memo

¶40

W.P.(C) No. 19510 of 2018

¶41

¶42

dated 31.5.2018 asking respondents 3 and 4 to stop the construction activities.

¶43

Even though notice is served on respondents 3 and 4, there is no appearance. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶44

The fact discussion made above would make it clear that, in order to effect partition of the property in question, suit is pending by and between the petitioner and respondents 3 and 4. I am also informed that, in the partition suit, Munisiff court had passed an order of status quo, which is still in force. However, taking note of the subsequent development based on the production of Annexures R1(a) and (b), I am of the considered opinion that, by issuing suiable directions, the writ petition can be disposed of.

¶45

Since respondents 1 and 2 have already taken action against the illegal construction carried out by respondents 3

¶46

W.P.(C) No. 19510 of 2018

¶47

¶48

and 4, evident from Annexures R1(a) and (b), I am of the considered opinion that, further orders are not required as of now. If the petitioner is still aggrieved consequent to any construction carried out by respondents 3 and 4 overlooking the stop memo issued by the Panchayath, petitioner will be at liberty to move the Munsiff's Court concerned wherein the partition suit is pending. Petitioner, respondents 3 and 4 and the Panchayath will be guided by the orders to be passed by the Munsiff's Court.

¶49

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶52

smv 3.7.2018

Vinija v. Kottuvally Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinija v. Kottuvally Panchayath

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

Sasikumar Vs the Senior Manager

Smitha Liju Vs State of Kerala

Sherly Vs District Level Authorized Committee

P.P.Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

C.v.Sebastian Vs Malayattoor-Neeleshwaram Grama Panchayat

Sunil George Vs Mulavukadu Grama Panchayath