Disposed

Vijayan.P.C v. Thirumarady Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC20 Nov 2019WP(C)/25814/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a Grama Panchayat order directing the petitioner to stop construction on property where a partition suit was pending. The Court did not quash the order but directed the Panchayat to hear the petitioner and objectors within two weeks to take a final decision.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is ordered stands disposed of. The Secretary of the Grama Panchayat is directed to hear the petitioner and objectors within two weeks and take a final decision on the construction.

Vijayan.P.C Vs Thirumarady Grama Panchayath — Partition | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 29TH KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.25814 OF 2019(B)

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

VIJAYAN.P.C AGED 59 YEARS S/O. CHELLAPPAN, PULINCHUVATTIL HOUSE, KAKKOOR KARA, THIRUMARADY VILLAGE, KAKKOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM-686 687

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH(ROY)

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

1 THIRUMARADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE THIRUMARADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THIRUMARADY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM-686 687

¶11

2 THE SECRETARY, THIRUMARADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, OFFICE OF THE THIRUMARADY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,THIRUMARADY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKUAM-686 687

¶12

R1-2 BY SRI.GIGIMON ISSAC, SC, THIRUMARADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.25814 OF 2019(B) 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner has approached this Court

¶17

seeking that all action pursuant to Ext.P6, issued by Thirumarady Grama Panchayat – directing him to stop the construction of a building being carried on in his property solely because there is a partition suit filed by his relatives with respect to the said property – be interdicted.

¶18

The petitioner says that in the Suit

¶19

pending before the competent Civil Court, a

¶20

preliminary decree has already been drawn up, wherein his rights over the plaint schedule property have been recognized and that he is entitled to be allotted the property in question, going by the principles of equity and continued possession. He says that it is thus that he is constructig the building thereon, which cannot be objected to by any of the other sharers and that

¶21

the Grama Pancayat could not have issued Ext.P6

¶22

and ought to have, in fact, allowed him to complete the construction and to occupy the same

¶23

WP(C).No.25814 OF 2019(B) 3

¶24

in terms of law. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P6 be set aside and that he be allowed to continue with the construction.

¶25

The learned Standing Counsel for the

¶26

Grama Panchayat submits that they have received complaints from the other sharers of the property and it is therefore, that Ext.P6 has been issued.

¶27

He says that if this Court is so inclined, they are willing to hear the petitioner, as well as the objectors, before taking a final decision pursuant to Ext.P6, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. He prays that this Writ Petition be ordered on such terms.

¶28

When I consider the afore submissions, it is without doubt that the Panchayath has issued Ext.P6 because the petitioner has not been able to prove exclusive possession of the property in question and also because of the

¶29

objections raised by the other sharers. I cannot, therefore, find fault with them in having issued the said proceedings; however, am of the view

¶30

that a final decision on the same will have to be

¶31

WP(C).No.25814 OF 2019(B) 4

¶32

now taken by them, after hearing the petitioner and the objectors.

¶33

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to hear the petitioner as well as the objectors within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and then take

¶34

a final decision with respect to the building being constructed by the petitioner; clarifying

¶35

that even if he is allowed to continue with

¶36

further construction, it will be subject to the decree to be passed by the competent Civil Court and that he will obtain no special rights over the property or the building thereon, either in

¶37

law or in equity, if the decree is to his detriment; in which event, he will have to

¶38

demolish the same and remove it without demur, subject to his legal rights against it.

¶39

This Writ Petition is thus ordered.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶42

¶43

WP(C).No.25814 OF 2019(B) 5

¶44

APPENDIX

¶45

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶46

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE PRELIMINARY DECREE IN O.S.NO.393 OF 2011 DATED 23.02.2016 OF THE MUNSIFFS COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA FILED BY PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY LETTER DATED 28.02.2019 AGAINST THE NOTICE DATED 22.02.2019 ISSUED BY PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 18.03.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 26.04.2019 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 28.04.2019
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING SUBMITTED BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS BY THE PETITIONER DATED 02.09.2019

¶47

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL

¶48

¶49

//TRUE COPY// CA TO JUDGE

Vijayan.P.C v. Thirumarady Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayan.P.C v. Thirumarady Grama Panchayath

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

Deva Matha Church, Vs Kodakara Grama Panchayat

K.K.Shameer, Vs the Secretary

Dr.Sadu.T.Kunjummen, Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer

Shiny Jacob Vs State of Kerala

Chandran K.P. Vs the Olavanna Grama Panchayath

Biju.M.D., Vs Kochi Municipal Corporation