Disposed

Vijayan Pillai v. Deputy Director of Panchayath

Kerala HC29 Jan 2019WP(C)/37672/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that litigation must not continue endlessly. It directed the Panchayath to issue a notice to the respondent constructing property, specifying alleged violations and requiring rectification within a time frame, while the stop memo remains in force.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent Panchayath shall issue a notice to the 5th respondent specifying violations and requiring rectification or statutory remedies within two months of the notice.

Vijayan Pillai Vs Deputy Director of Panchayath — Writ and Judicial Review | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C)No.37672 of 2016 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶5

TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 9TH MAGHA, 1940

¶6

WP(C).No. 37672 of 2016

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

VIJAYAN PILLAI

¶9

S/O. SANKARA PILLAI, 'PALAVILA VEEDU", PUTHOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT-691507.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.H.PRAVEEN (KOTTARAKARA)

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-691009.

¶13

2 KULAKKADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KULAKKADA, MANNADI P.O., KOLLAM-691507.

¶14

3 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKARA POLICE STATION, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT-691506.

¶15

4 SARASWATHY AMMA, D/O. GOWRI AMMA, "KALEELUVILA VEEDU", POOVATTOOR WEST, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM-691506.

¶16

5 KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O. GOWRI AMMA, "KALEELUVILA VEEDU",POOVATTOOR WEST, KOTTARAKARA, KOLLAM-691506.

¶17

BY ADVS. SRI.ALEXANDER GEORGE SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SRI.K.RAJAGOPAL SRI.P.A.KUMARAN

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

V.G.ARUN, J.

¶20

W.P.(C)No.37672 of 2016

¶21

Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2019

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The Writ Petition has been filed seeking implementation of Ext P4 stop memo by which the 2^nd respondent Panchayath had required the 5^th respondent to desist from continuing the construction he was carrying out in his property having an extent of 45 Sq.m comprised in Block No.12 in Survey No.188/24 in Kulakkada Village. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext P4 was issued when, in spite of specific directions, the petitioner continued with the illegal construction. The learned counsel for the 5^th respondent refutes the allegation and contends that he has not carried out any construction after receipt of Ext P4. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the said submission is not correct and that he was forced to file the Writ Petition when the petitioner was continuing with the construction, in spite of receipt of Ext P4.

¶24

According to me, there is no point in continuing this litigation endlessly without the 5^th respondent being put on notice as to what exactly are the violations he

¶25

W.P.(C)No.37672 of 2016 3

¶26

has committed. In the event of such violation being specifically pointed out, it is for the 5^th respondent either to rectify the defect or to seek remedies available to him under the statutory provisions. In such circumstances, it is only appropriate that the Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶27

(i) The 2^nd respondent Panchayath shall issue a notice to the 5^th respondent, specifically pointing out the violations alleged to have been committed and requiring the petitioner to cure the defects/violations within a specific time frame.

¶28

(ii) The notice shall be issued within a period of

¶29

three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶30

(iii) Till the process mentioned above is completed, the stop memo shall continue to be in force.

¶31

(iv) On receipt of such notice, the petitioner shall rectify the defects/violations within the time frame or avail the remedies, if any, available to him.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN, JUDGE

cms

W.P.(C)No.37672 of 2016 4

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF SALE DEED NO. 505/2003 IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER DATED 9-42003. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BASIC TAX RECEIPT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 4-11-2016. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STOP MEMO ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 5-11-2016. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 16-11-2016. EXT P6 COPY OF PHOTOGRAPHS EXT P7 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.C29798/16 ISSUED BY R1 DTD 16.1.2017 RESPONDENTS EXTS EXT R4(A) COPY OF PROPOSED PLAN WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE cms

¶39

Direction No.(iv) in page No.3 of the judgment dated 29.1.2019 in W.P(C) No.37672/2016 is corrected as follows:

¶40

(iv) On receipt of such notice, the 5^th respondent shall rectify the defects/violations within the time frame or avail the remedies, if any, available to him. The rectification of the defects/violations, if any, shall be carried out within a period of two months from the date of receipt of notice from the second respondent Panchayath”.

¶41

W.P.(C)No.37672 of 2016 5

¶42

Vide order dated 14/2/2019 in I.A.No.3/2019 in WP(C) No.37672/2016.

¶43

Sd/-Joint Registrar

Vijayan Pillai v. Deputy Director of Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayan Pillai v. Deputy Director of 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

Aparna S Anil Vs the Vice Chancellor University of Kerala

Sachidhanandha Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Sunnil Kumar K., Vs District Collector

Mohana Krishna Sharma V.K. Vs the Kerala Water Authority

K.a.Muhammed Vs State of Kerala

Jose Anto Vs Kerala Water Authority