Dismissed

Roy Mathew v. Vellathooval Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC8 Aug 2019WP(C)/14067/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala dismissed a writ petition as withdrawn. The petitioner sought to quash a Panchayat order and restrain concreting of a road. The court permitted withdrawal with liberty to challenge a subsequent resolution.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to challenge the subsequent resolution via a separate writ petition.

Roy Mathew Vs Vellathooval Grama… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 / 17TH SRAVANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.14067 OF 2019(G)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

ROY MATHEW,AGED 54 YEARS, PAMPLANIYIL HOUSE, BHARANANGANAM P.O., PALA VIA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.P.T.ABHILASH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 VELLATHOOVAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT VELLATHOOVAL P.O., ADIMALY VIA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 563, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2 IDUKKI DISTRICT PANCHAYAT, PAINAVU, KATTAPPANA-VIA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 603, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶12

THE ADDRESS OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT IS SUBSTITUTED AS 'VELLATHOOVAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT COMMITTEE, VELLATHOOVAL P.O., ADIMALY VIA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 563, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT AS PER ORDER DATED 8/8/19 IN I.A.3/19.

¶13

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KUNJITHANNI VILLAGE, KUNJITHANNI P.O., ADIMALY-VIA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN685 565.

¶14

4 BENNY KALLARACKAL, KALLARACKAL HOUSE, CHENGULAM P.O., ADIMALY-VIA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 565.

¶15

5 RAJAN OLICKAL,OLICKAL HOUSE, CHENGULAM P.O., ADIMALY-VIA, IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 565.

¶16

6 ASOKAN CHIRAKKAL,CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, CHENGULAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT, PIN-685 565.

¶17

R1 BY SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW,SC,VELLATHOOVAL R2 BY SRI.UNNIKRISHNAN V.ALAPATT, SC, IDUKKI DISTRICT PANCHAYATH BY SRI MANU RAJ K.J- GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.08.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC 14067 OF 2019

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is stated to be the owner of 1.3112 hectares of property comprised in Re.Sy.No.235/10 (Old Sy.No.19/1/207/1/2, 377/2 and 378/2) of Kunjithanni Village, Devikulam Taluk, Idukki District, covered by Ext.P1 document No.1778/2006 dated 06.06.2006 of the Sub Registrar Office, Devikulam, has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P8 order dated 25.03.2019 of the 1^st respondent Grama Panchayat. The petitioner has also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 and 2 not to concrete/tar the private road owned by him, passing through his property, until the said portion/extent of road is surrendered by him or the said extent of property owned by him is acquired by respondents 1 and 2, in accordance with the procedure established by law. The further relief sought for is a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P9 appeal forthwith.

¶23

On 22.05.2019, when this writ petition came up for admission, the learned Standing Counsel took notice on admission for the 1^st respondent Vellathooval Grama Panchayat. Sri.Georgekutty Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel took notice on admission for the 2^nd respondent District Panchayat.

¶24

WPC 14067 OF 2019 3

¶25

The learned Government Pleader took notice on admission for the 3^rd respondent Village Officer. This Court issued urgent notice on admission by special messenger to respondents 4 to 6 returnable by 27.05.2019. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1^st respondent was directed to get instructions.

¶26

By a separate order of this date, I.A.No.1 of 2019 filed by the petitioner seeking an order to accept Exts.P10 and P11 as additional documents and I.A.No.3 of 2019 to correct the description of the 2^nd respondent in the cause title as “Vellathooval Grama Panchayat Committee, Vellathooval P.O., Adimaly-via , Idukki District, Pin-685 563, represented by its President” are allowed.

¶27

The petitioner has also filed I.A.No.2 of 2019, seeking permission to withdraw this writ petition, with liberty to challenge Ext.P10 resolution dated 10.06.2019 of the 1^st respondent Grama Panchayat. Paragraph 3 and last paragraph of the affidavit accompanying to that interlocutory application read thus;

¶28

“3. During the pendency of the above W.P.(C), the Ext.P9 appeal was rejected as per the Resolution No.1(7) dated 10.6.2019 of the Panchayat Committee, a true copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-P10 and Ext.P10 decision was communicated to me as per the Proceeding No.A3-4693/18 dated 15.6.2019 of the 1^st respondent, a true copy of which is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit-P11 .

¶29

Hence, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be

¶30

¶31

WPC 14067 OF 2019

¶32

pleased to accept the documents marked as Exts.P10 and P11, into the file of the above W.P.(C) and permit me to withdraw the above case, with the liberty to challenge Ext.P10 resolution, by filing separate W.P.(C), for the ends of justice.”

¶33

In such circumstances, leaving open all legal and factual contentions, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P10 decision in appropriate proceedings.

¶34

I.A.No.2 of 2019 is disposed of.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶37

AV/ 9/8

Roy Mathew v. Vellathooval Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Roy Mathew v. Vellathooval Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Kerala Vs K.v.Vijindas

M/S.Kasmisons Builders Private Limited, Vs the Corporation of Kochi

Yaser Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

A.Chenthamara Vs the Manager, Canara Bank

Naushad Vs the Joint Regional Transport Officer

Kabeer, Vs the Secretary