Disposed

Neena Kora Jacob v. the District Disaster Management Authority

Kerala HC6 Feb 2018WP(C)/448/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by property owners challenging an order halting activities due to landslide risk. Court directed that the judgment on an adjacent property be applied to the petitioners. Petition disposed of directing respondents to follow previous appellate directions and submit further reports.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to follow the directions issued in the related writ appeal (WA No.1965/2017) and consider any further reports secured.

Neena Kora Jacob Vs the District… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | 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 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 17TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 448 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1 NEENA KORA JACOB, AGED 61 YEARS, PALLUTHUSHERIYIL HOUSE, ANATHANAM PO, MANGANAM, KOTTAYAM.

¶8

2 GEORGE JACOB, AGED 63 YEARS, S/O JACOB, PALLUTHUSHERIYIL HOUSE, ANATHANAM PO, MANGANAM, KOTTAYAM.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. THE DISTRICT DISASTER MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, IDUKKI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PAINAVU PO, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685603.

¶12

2. THE SUB COLLECTOR, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685613.

¶13

3. THE TAHSILDAR DEVIKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, IDUKKI DISTRICT - 685613. BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.R.SABU

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: mbr/

¶15

WP(C).No. 448 of 2018 (E)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE HEARING NO.A3/3681 DATED 29.11.2012.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-1883/13 DTD. 19.3.2014 ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PALLIVASAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, UNDER THE KERALA PANCHAYATI RAJ (PROPERTY TAX, SERVICE TAX AND SURCHARGE)RULES DATED 9.10.2014.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.M.1-10150/2017 DTD. 8.8.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER DATED 18.8.2017.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GOOGLE MAP WHICH IS TAKEN FROM THE WEBSITE OF WIKIPEDIA SHOWING THE LOCATION OF PLUM JUDY RESORT, RESIDENCE OF THE PETITIONERS ETC.
EXHIBIT P7 THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE ACTUAL LIE AND LOCATION OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P7(A) THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE ACTUAL LIE AND LOCATION OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P7(B) THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE ACTUAL LIE AND LOCATION OF PETITIONERS PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO.DM1-10150/2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 7.10.2017.

¶19

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

mbr/

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

W.P.(C) No.448 of 2018

¶25

Dated this the 6^th day of February, 2018

¶26

JUDGMENT

¶27

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by Ext.P4

¶28

order dated 8.8.2017, whereby, the petitioners, and yet another adjacent property owner were directed to stop activities in the building situate in Survey No.1/1-5.

¶29

Material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as

¶30

follows:-

¶31

Petitioners are absolute owners in title and possession of 42

¶32

cents of property situate in Survey No.1/1-5 of Moonnamkandam Village, Devikulam Taluk, Idukki District. According to the petitioners, the property was mutated in favour of the petitioners

¶33

and tax is being paid, and there is no jurisdiction vested with the

¶34

statutory authority to pass order like one passed in Ext.P4. It is also

¶35

W.P.(C) No.448 of 2018

¶36

¶37

the case of the petitioners that, as apprehended by the respondents

¶38

in Ext.P4 there is no possibility of landslide and the building of the petitioners is only a residential building, whereas the activities of the other building directing to be stopped is a resort, and therefore there is material difference by and between the business conducted in the resort as well as the activity of the petitioners as a residential building. Any how, a writ petition was preferred by the resort owner before this Court, under very same/similar circumstances, and the same was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court. Aggrieved, WA No.1965/2017 is filed and as per a judgment dated 1.11.2017, the appeal was disposed of with the following directions:-

¶39

“1) The judgment under appeal is set aside. The appellant will take further remedial measures as contained in the conclusions in

¶40

the report submitted by the National Institute of Technology,

¶41

W.P.(C) No.448 of 2018

¶42

¶43

extracted above. This shall be done within the time limit

¶44

indicated in the report itself.

¶45

The appellant will also submit a copy of the report submitted by the NIT, Karnataka to the District Disaster Management Authority. This shall be done within a week from today. On submission of the report, DDMA shall consider the

¶46

report and pass orders in the light of the conclusions therein.”

¶47

Even though various contentions are raised with respect

¶48

to the illegality in Ext.P4 order, I am of the considered opinion that,

¶49

the yardstick adopted by the Division Bench of this Court in the

¶50

adjacent property can be made applicable to the petitioners also.

¶51

Therefore, after hearing learned counsel for the

¶52

petitioners and learned senior Government Pleader and perusing the

¶53

pleadings and documents on record, this writ petition is disposed of

¶54

directing the respondents to follow the directions issued by this

¶55

W.P.(C) No.448 of 2018

¶56

¶57

Court in aforesaid writ appeal, also taking into account any other

¶58

report, that is secured after the directions are issued by the Division

¶59

Bench.

¶60

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶61

Sd/-

¶62

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶63

dlk/6/2/

Neena Kora Jacob v. the District Disaster Management Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neena Kora Jacob v. the District Disaster Management Authority

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

Marikutty Samuel Vs a. Hemachandran

Rojan J.Manjerikalam Vs Assistant Executive Engineer

Sainudeen a a Vs the State of Kerala

V. Rajesh Kumar Vs Sri.a.Hemachandran

A.C.Ashok Kumar Vs P.K.Santhoshakumar

Beena Balachandran Vs Haripad Municipality