Disposed

Lilly Joseph v. Panancherry Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC23 Jul 2018WP(C)/5911/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition seeking removal of a temporary shed on acquired land and restoration of the land. The Court disposed of the petition preliminarily, directing the Panchayat to adjudicate the matter after the parties file written representations or objections within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

No immediate relief granted; parties directed to file objections/representations and Panchayat to adjudicate within one month thereafter.

Lilly Joseph Vs Panancherry Grama Panchayat — 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

MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 5911 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER(S)

¶7

LILLY JOSEPH, W/O.OUSEPH,AGED 69, THANCHEMPERIL VEEDU, VANIAM PARA(P.O.)THRISSUR.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM) SMT.ASHA P.KURIAKOSE SRI.G.KEERTHIVAS

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. PANANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PATTIKAD P.O.,THIRSSUR-680652.

¶11

2. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA, CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD.678 007.

¶12

3. THE PROJECT MANAGER, KMC CONSTRUCTIONS LTD., PANNIAMKARA P.O., THRISSUR.678 683.

¶13

4. VIJU DAMODARAN, S/O.DAMODARAN, PUTHIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE,VANIAMPARA P.O., THIRSSUR 680 652.

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.C.DEVY R2 BY ADV. SRI.E.C.KURIAKOSE R3 BY ADVS.SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)

¶15

SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA SRI.THOMAS ANTONY R4 BY ADVS. SRI.R.SREEHARI SRI.SACHIN VYAS

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 5911 of 2018 (L)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶21

EXHIBIT P1:	TRUE COPY OF THE TITLE DEED OF THE PETITIONER BEARING NO.658/1984.
EXHIBIT P2:	TRUE COPY OF THE SURVEY SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY SHOWING THE ACQUIRED PORTION OF THE LAND.
EXHIBIT P3:	A SKETCH OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY.
EXHIBIT P4:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5:	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 31.7.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6:	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.12.2017 ISSUED BY THE PANANCHERRY GRAMA PANCHAYAT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7:	PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE THATCHED SHED OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND ITS SURROUNDINGS.`

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)'EXHIBITS - NIL

¶23

/TRUE COPY/

¶24

TS 27.07.2018

¶25

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶26

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.5911 of 2018

¶27

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23^rd day of July , 2018

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

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

¶30

“a) Issue a writ of mandamus or nay other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to immediately remove the temporary shed put up by the 4^th rspondent in front of the petitioner's building in Sy.no.1503/1-4A in Peechy Village; alternatively;

¶31

b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to restore the unutilized acquired land in Sy.No.1503/1-4A of Peechi village back to the petitioner if it is not required any longer by the NHAI; and

¶32

c) issue such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem just and fit in the circumstances of the case.”

¶33

The case of the petitioner is that, petitioner is the owner of an extent of 0.0100 hectors of land situated in Sy.no.1503/14A of Vaniampara in Peechy Village, it was acquired for the purpose of widening of National Highway as six-lane road and for formation of the service road. According to the petitioner, the construction of the National Highway was completed and a strip of land is remaining as un-utilized. Petitioner is still

¶34

W.P.(C)No.5911 of 2018

¶35

-:2:-

¶36

holding other property behind such strip of land, the 4^th respondent has installed a temporary structure in the strip of land, which is causing serious prejudice to the petitioner, to enter into his property. Thereupon, apparently, petitioner has made a complaint to the Panchayat, the Panchayat taking note of the situation issued Ext.P6 notice. The 4^th respondent was directed to stop business carried on in the temporary shed. According to the petitioner, in spite of Ext.P4 notice, the 4^th respondent has not stoped the business, and petitioner is put various difficulties, consequent to the inaction on the part of the Panchayat to implement Ext.P6.

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel appearing for the Panchayat, the Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent and also counsel appearing for the 4^th respondent, perused the pleadings and documents on records.

¶38

It is evident from Ext.P6 that, it is a notice issued to the 4^th respondent, asking the 4^th respondent to show cause why, coercive action shall not be taken by the Panchayat to demolish the temporary structure. There is every opportunity for the 4^th

¶39

W.P.(C)No.5911 of 2018

¶40

-:3:-

¶41

respondent to file suitable objection to the same. However, a finality shall be attained to the same, in view of the grievance put forth by the petitioner, on early basis and within a stipulated time limit. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner and 4^th respondent to submit suitable representation/ objection to Ext.P6, at the earliest possible time, and at any rate, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Panchayat shall finally adjudicate the issue, after hearing the respective parties, within one month thereafter.

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶43

Sd/SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶44

SPV/24.07.2018

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

PA TO JUDGE

Lilly Joseph v. Panancherry Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lilly Joseph v. Panancherry 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

Shereef Vs R.N. Vrindadevi , Tahsildar, Kananyannur Taluk

Bijumon A.P Vs Narendrababu

Ajayakumar Vs Kadakkavoor Grama Panchayath

Hemanth Kumar Vs M.Sureshan

Balan Vs Local Level Monitoring Committee

Ansar Basheer Vs the District Collector,Kollam