Disposed

M.Unnikrishna Menon v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Jul 2018WP(C)/4025/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, to take appropriate action on illegal constructions abutting his property, in accordance with a previous judgment. The court directed the respondent to consider the previous judgment, issue notice to concerned parties, and take action within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the third respondent to issue notice to concerned parties to take appropriate action on illegal constructions within two months.

M.Unnikrishna Menon Vs State of Kerala — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2018 / 21ST ASHADHA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 4025 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

M.UNNIKRISHNA MENON 28/575/4, PRANAVAM, PALIYAM ROAD, THRISSUR- 680 001.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.C.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001.

¶11

2. THE SECRETARY, THRISSUR CORPORATION, CORPORATION OFFICE, M.O.ROAD, THRISSUR- 680 001.

¶12

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,

¶13

CHEMBOOKKAVU, THRISSUR- 680 020.

¶14

R2 BY ADV. SRI. SANTHOSH P.PODUVAL, SC, THRISSUR CORPORATION BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.PAUL ABRAHAM VAKKANAL

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 4025 of 2018 (C)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

EXT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 3061/2013 & WP(C) 10087/2016.

¶20

EXT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 06/12/2016 ISSUED

¶21

BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER LETTER DATED 04/10/2017 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

\TRUE COPY \

PA TO JUDGE

jm/

SHAJI P.CHALY, J.

¶27

========================

¶28

W.P.(C) No.4025 of 2018

¶29

========================

¶30

Dated this the 12^th day of July 2018

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

According to the petitioner, petitioner is having a three storied building abutting to the property of one K.Narayanankutty, having an extent of 2.75 cents of land. K.Narayanankutty carried out certain constructions, which are illegal according to the petitioner, which was pointed out by the petitioner to the 2^nd respondent Corporation. Corporation has issued necessary direction to demolish the constructions carried out by the said person. This was challenged by the said person before this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.3061/2013 and secured an order of stay. Later, petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.10087/2016 before this Court. Both the writ petitions were heard together and disposed of

¶33

¶34

W.P.(C) No.4025 of 2018

¶35

on 23.9.2016 by a common order directing the Regional Town Planner, who was impleaded suo moto, to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Now the grievance highlighted by the petitioner in this writ petition is that in spite of the direction contained in Ext.P1 judgment, no action is initiated by the respondents. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to the 3^rd respondent to take appropriate action, in accordance with law, after providing notice of hearing to all concerned.

¶36

Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned Counsel appearing for the Trichur Corporation, there will be a direction to the 3^rd respondent to consider the directions contained in the judgment, namely Ext.P1 produced along with writ petition, after issuing notice to the petitioner and K.Narayanankutty who is the petitioner in W.P. (C)No.3061/2013, and take appropriate action, at the

¶37

W.P.(C) No.4025 of 2018

¶38

¶39

earliest and at any rate, within two months from the date of

¶40

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶42

Sd/

¶43

SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE

¶44

jm/

¶45

\ True copy \

¶46

PA to Judge

M.Unnikrishna Menon v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Unnikrishna Menon v. State of Kerala

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

Shaji Sivanandan Vs Smt. Jasmin.T.B

Sunny P.J. Vs Sureshkumar T.K.

Babu Vs Elamkunnapuzha Grama Panchayat

M/S.Ekk & Company Vs Sri.Manoj Joshi

Mr.Rajendran Vs State of Kerala

Dr. Sanil Kumar.J.G Vs the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation