Disposed

C.v.Sebastian v. Malayattoor-Neeleshwaram Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC3 Jul 2018WP(C)/327/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a writ petition complaining about a latrine and septic tank constructed by the fifth respondent near the petitioner's property. The court directed the Panchayat authority to pursue the initiated action to abate the nuisance within one month of receiving this judgment.

What did the court decide?

The Panchayat authority is directed to abate the nuisance by removing or relocating the septic tank within one month.

C.v.Sebastian Vs Malayattoor-Neeleshwaram… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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. 327 of 2015

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

C.V. SEBASTIAN, AGED 56, S/O.LATE VARGHESE, CHUNDANGIL HOUSE, KOTTAMAM, NEELESHWARAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 584. BY ADVS.SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW SRI.GIBI.C.GEORGE

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

1.	MALAYATTOOR-NEELESHWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NEELESHWARAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2.	THE SECRETARY, MALAYATTOOR - NEELESHWARAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NEELESHWARAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 574.
3.	MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, MALAYATTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 587.
4.	HEALTH INSPECTOR, MEDICAL OFFICER, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, MALAYATTOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 587.
5.	JOJO, S/O.JOSEPH, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, KOTTAMAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 584.
6.	DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
	R1 & R2 BY DR.K.P.SATHEESAN (SENIOR ADVOCATE) ADVS. SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.ANOOP.V.NAIR SRI.S.VIBHEESHANAN SRI.N.MANU THAMPI R3, R4 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL
	THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

mbr/

¶11

WP(C).No. 327 of 2015 (M)

¶12

APPENDIX

¶13

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶14

EXT.P1:	COPY OF DECISION NO.XI DATED 21/12/2013 TAKEN BY THE PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT.
EXT.P2:	COPY OF ORDER NO. M-3510/2014 DATED 02/09/2014 PASSED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI.
EXT.P3:	COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 21/06/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P4:	COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 24/06/2014 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT.
EXT.P5:	COPY OF THE LAWYER NOTICE DATED 13/08/2014 ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6:	COPY OF REPORT DATED 06/07/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P7:	COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 07/08/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P8:	COPY OF ORDER NO. A7-3431/14 DATED 23/09/2014 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P9:	COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27/10/2014 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P10:	COPY OF RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT.
EXT.P11:	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.3.2017 FROM THE 6TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P12:	COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.4.17.
EXT.P13:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.5.17.
EXT.P14:	COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16.5.17.

¶15

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ----------------------

¶16

/TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE

¶17

mbr/ 05.07.2018.

¶18

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶19

W.P.(C). No. 327 OF 2015

¶20

Dated this the 03^rd day of July, 2018

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Petitioner is the owner of an extent of 40 cents of property situated in Survey No.234/10 in Block No. 25 of Kalady Village, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam District. Petitioner has constructed a residential building in the the above said property and is residing with his family. The fifth respondent is having property on the western side of petitioner's property. There are several trees standing in the property of the fifth respondent, which are planted very close to the western boundary of petitioner's property. Since the branches of the trees were standing slanting towards the property of the petitioner, petitioner took steps and later the branches of the trees and trees were cut and removed on the basis of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.(C). No. 33187/2014. Now, the grievance highlighted by the petitioner is that a latrine and a septic tank is constructed

¶23

W.P.(C). No. 327 of 2015 2

¶24

by the fifth respondent close to the boundary wall of the petitioner and close to a well situated in the property of the petitioner. On the basis of a complaint filed by the petitioner, action was initiated by the Panchayat and Ext.P6 report is submitted by the Health Inspector pointing out that the tank of the latrine should be removed from the place and it should be re-installed 7.5 meters away from the boundary wall of the petitioner's property. Thereafter, Panchayat has issued Ext.P8 order directing the fifth respondent to remove the septic tank from the present place, where it is situated. Inspite of all the directions, no action was initiated by the Panchayat to abate the nuisance. Petitioner has also submitted Ext.P9 representation. Having confronted with such inaction on the part of respondents, this writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking appropriate directions.

¶25

Later I.A. No. 8906/2017 is filed whereby additional documents are produced namely, Exts.P11 to P14 in which certain directions are issued by the District

¶26

W.P.(C). No. 327 of 2015

¶27

¶28

Collector and Panchayat authorities in continuation of Ext.P6 order passed by the fourth respondent and Ext. P8 order passed by the Panchayat.

¶29

Apparently from the documents produced along with the writ petition and the pleadings, it is clear that inspite of the directions issued by the District Collector and Panchayat, the fifth respondent has not cared to adhere to the directions contained thereunder. This writ petition is pending before this Court for the past three years. However, none of the respondents have cared to file an affidavit refuting the allegations raised by the petitioner.

¶30

Learned Government Pleader submitted that the District Collector is not interested in the matter, since the action is to be initiated by the Panchayat and therefore, the role of the District Collector is very limited.

¶31

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader and perusing the pleadings and the documents on record, I am of the

¶32

W.P.(C). No. 327 of 2015 4

¶33

considered opinion that this is a fit case where a direction is to be issued to the Panchayat authority to pursue the action initiated, as per Exts. P8 and P12 to P14 and abate the nuisance, at the earliest possible time, and at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Accordingly, I do so. The Panchayat authorities are directed to bear in mind the direction issued by the District Collector, evident from Ext.P11, dated 20.03.2017 also, while complying with the directions issued above.

¶34

The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.

¶35

sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶36

DCS

C.v.Sebastian v. Malayattoor-Neeleshwaram Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.v.Sebastian v. Malayattoor-Neeleshwaram Grama Panchayat

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

Sunil George Vs Mulavukadu Grama Panchayath

Vinija Vs Kottuvally Panchayath