Partly allowed

Sarada, v. the Mathoor Grama Panchayat

Kerala HC12 Nov 2019WP(C)/4742/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ direction to compel Panchayat to maintain 'Podikulangara Road' apprehending removal of materials. Court held Panchayat must maintain road subject to pending civil suit ownership determination. Rejected claim about tarring removal.

What did the court decide?

Panchayat directed to maintain road subject to civil court's decision on ownership. Apprehension regarding removal of tarring recorded but vehemently denied by Panchayat.

Sarada, Vs the Mathoor Grama Panchayat — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 21ST KARTHIKA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.4742 OF 2019(P)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SARADA, AGED 60 YEARS W/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, PODIKULANGARA VEETTIL, MATHOOR GRAHARAM P.O., ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.JOHNSON (VARIKKAPPALLIL)

¶9

RESPONDENS:

¶10

1 THE MATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MATHOOR, ALATHUR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 678 571.

¶11

2 SUMESH P.A. S/O.AMBUJAKSHAN, PODIKULANGARA HOUSE, MATHUR - 678571, AGRAHARAM, PALAKKAD. (ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDERDATED 26/03/2019 IN I.A NO. 1/2019)

¶12

R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) R2 BY ADV. S.SINDHU

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.4742 OF 2019(P)

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner has approached this Court under an apprehension that the 1^st respondent-Mathoor Grama Panchayat will not maintain a Panchayat Road by name 'Podikulangara Road' in Alathur Thaluk of Palakkad District, which she claims is included in the Asset Register of the said Panchayat.

¶18

The petitioner says that the 2^nd respondent is now making an attempt to claim the property through which the road is running as being his own, and that a civil suit has also been filed by him for this purpose against the Panchayat. The petitioner submits that merely on account of the pendency of this suit, the Panchayat appears to be not maintaining the road and that they are likely to remove the materials presently stocked on the sides of the road for its maintenance. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the Panchayat be directed not to remove the construction materials from the said road and to maintain it forthwith.

¶19

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat submits that they have been unable to repair or maintain the road on account of Ext.R2(c) injunction order issued by Munisiff’s Court, Alathur, in a suit filed by the 2^nd respondent,

¶20

WP(C).No.4742 OF 2019(P)

¶21

¶22

namely O.S.No.101 of 2018, and that they will commence such work as soon as they are able to obtain necessary orders from the said Court. He, however, asserts that as per the Asset Register, the road in question belongs to the Panchayat and therefore, that the 2^nd respondent cannot claim any exclusive rights over the same.

¶23

The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent, on the contrary, asserts with equal vehemence that the road in question belongs to him and that as long as the afore mentioned Suit is pending, the Panchayat cannot repair the road, on account of the interim injunction which is still in force.

¶24

When I consider the afore submissions, it is obvious that while the petitioner claims that the property through which the road is running belongs to the Panchayat, the 2^nd respondent contends otherwise, and claims exclusive ownership over the same. Certainly this is a matter that has to be decided by Munisiff’s Court, Alathur, in the afore mentioned suit and it will not be available for this Court, while acting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to delve into these issues or to state upon them affirmatively.

¶25

I am, therefore, of the view that the Panchayat must maintain

¶26

WP(C).No.4742 OF 2019(P)

¶27

¶28

the road, subject to the decision to be taken by the competent Civil Court in this matter and that if such decision is to their favour, then certainly the work of maintaining and repairing the road in question shall be completed without any further delay.

¶29

After I dictated this judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client also has an apprehension that the Panchayat is likely to remove the tarring on the road under the influence of the 2^nd respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat submits that this apprehension is completely without basis and the Panchayat intends to do nothing as has been alleged by the petitioner. This is recorded.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

nak

¶34

WP(C).No.4742 OF 2019(P)

¶35

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO. 425/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT AT ALATHUR.

¶39

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER REPORT ALONG WITH THE SKETCH IN O.S. NO. 25/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNSIFF COURT AT ALATHUR.

¶40

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 5.2.2019 ALONG WITH ITS A/D CARD.

¶41

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶42

EXHIBIT R2(A) A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DTD.6/2/2019 FILED BY THE ADDITIONAL 2ND RESPONDENT IN I.A.NO.2575/2018 IN OS 425/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE MUNISIFF COURT ALATHUR.

¶43

EXHIBIT R2(B) A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DTD.26/5/2018 RECEIVED FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶44

EXHIBIT R2(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.4/72018 IN I.A NO.805/2018 IN O.S NO.101/2018 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, ALTHUR

¶45

EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 19.07.2018 TAKEN BY THE MATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 01.11.2018 ISSED BY THE SECRETRY, MATHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT ALTHUR

¶46

EXHIBIT R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 04.07.2018 IN I.A NO. 805/2018 IN O.S. NO.101/2018 ON THE FILES OF MUNISIFF'S COURT, ALTHUR

¶47

WP(C).No.4742 OF 2019(P)

¶48

¶49

EXHIBIT R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 03.09.2018 ISSUED TO THE CONTRACTOR BALAKRISHNAN M, KADANTHODY PALLANCHATHANNOOR, MATHUR BY THE SECRETARY, GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MATHUR EXHIBIT R1(E) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.02.2019 ISSUED TO THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, L.S.G.D. MATHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT BY THE SECRETARY, MATHU GRAMA PANCHAYAT.

¶50

//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Sarada, v. the Mathoor Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarada, v. the Mathoor Grama Panchayat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.a.Anees Vs Karumaloor Grama Panchayath, Represented by Its Secretary

Indian Pentecostal Church Vs the State of Kerala

K.Moudammal Vs Alfas

Mammudu.a Vs the Malappuram Municipality

Ravi Vs State of Kerala

Hamza Vs the Secretary