Allowed

K.Ramanathan v. the District Collector, Kasaragod

Kerala HC26 Nov 2019WP(C)/5159/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition directed the 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat to immediately commence constructing a retaining wall on the petitioner's property. The wall was necessary due to boundary damage caused by a prior water supply project. The court noted that decisions and funding were already in place but directed completion within two months.

What did the court decide?

The Court directed the 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat to commence construction of the retaining wall immediately and complete it within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment copy.

K.Ramanathan Vs the District Collector… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941

¶5

WP(C).No.5159 OF 2019(T)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

K.RAMANATHAN AGED 63 YEARS S/O. KARIMBIL KUNHAMBU, RESIDING AT VAISHNAVAM, KUMBALAPALLY, PERIYAGANAM (PO), KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 314.

¶8

BY ADVS. SHRI.JAWAHAR JOSE SMT.CISSY MATHEWS SRI.SARUN RAJAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KASARAGOD CIVIL STATION (P.O.), VIDYANAGAR, KASARAGOD 671 123. 2 THE KINANOOR KARINDALAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARINDALAM (P.O.), KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 314. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KANHANGAD SUB DIVISION, MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, MINI CIVIL STATION, KANHANGAD (P.O.), KASARAGOD DISTRICT 671 315. 4 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KERALA RURAL WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION AGENCY (K.R.W.S.A.-JALANIDHI), P.T.C. TOWERS, S.S. KOVIL ROAD, THAMPANOOR (P.O.) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

5 THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REGIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT, K.R.W.S.A-JALANIDHI, 2ND FLOOR, NEAR A.K.G. CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL, TALAP, KANNUR 670 002.

¶12

R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN R4 BY ADV. SRI.D.KISHORE R4 BY ADV. SRI.N.ARJUNAN PILLAI

¶13

OTHER PRESENT:

¶14

SR.GP.K.AMMINIKUTTY

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No.5159 OF 2019(T)

¶17

¶18

J U D G M E N T

¶19

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking that the 2^nd respondent - Grama Panchayat be directed to construct a retaining wall on his boundary, which is remaining adjacent to the 'Kumbalapalli Chal' in terms of their decisions already taken, as is evident from Exts.P10, P11 and P12.

¶20

The petitioner says that his property is a multi-crop agricultural land containing Arecanut and Coconut trees and that the aforementioned stream is flowing on its north-western boundary. He says that respondents 2, 4 and 5, with the financial assistance of the World Bank, implemented a water supply project by name 'Umachipoyil Shudhajala Pathadhi', for which, a minor check dam was also constructed, which led to the boundary wall of his property being deracinated, thus constraining him to approach the Panchayat for adequate remedial measures. He says that under the provisions of Section 166 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the respondent - Grama Panchayat is enjoined to complete the work as part of essential works and that they had therefore, adopted the afore mentioned decisions and minutes agreeing to construct the retaining wall on the boundary of the petitioner's property but

¶21

WP(C).No.5159 OF 2019(T)

¶22

¶23

that no action has been taken thereon. The petitioner therefore, prays that the Panchayat be directed to complete such work at the earliest.

¶24

Sri.Jawahar Jose, learned counsel for the petitioner, adds to the above by saying that pending this lis, Exts.P15 and P16 decisions had been taken by the Panchayat, as per which, they have again affirmed the requirement to construct the retaining wall but that in spite of this, no action has been taken until now. He reiteratingly, therefore, prays that necessary action pursuant to Exts.P15 and P16 be directed to be completed at the earliest.

¶25

The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent - Grama Panchayat, submits that they have no objection in constructing the retaining wall on the boundary of the petitioner's property but that they are awaiting concurrence from the 5^th respondent. He says that as soon as such concurrence is obtained, the necessary action for construction of wall will be initiated and completed at the earliest.

¶26

In reply to the afore, Sri.Jawahar Jose, submitted that as is evident from Ext.P16, the 5^th respondent has already granted the concurrence to the Panchayat to complete the work and that this is further substantiated from Ext.P17, which

¶27

WP(C).No.5159 OF 2019(T)

¶28

¶29

is an information received by his client through the Right to Information Act; wherein, the Director (Technical) of the Kerala Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency has directed the 5^th respondent - Regional Director to execute the work immediately and to issue necessary directions to the Contractor to “reinstate the damages caused to the side wall of the property of the petitioner or in the event of disagreement by the contractor to carry out the work, the same may be done by the beneficiary group at the risk and cost of the contractor”(sic). He therefore, says that objection now raised by the Standing Counsel for the Panchayat is no longer relevant.

¶30

The learned Standing Counsel for the 4^th respondent - Kerala Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Agency, affirms the afore submissions of Sri.Jawahar Jose, adding that they have already granted necessary clearances and permissions to the Panchayat to complete the work with respect to the boundary wall of the petitioner's property and that he has nothing further to comment on the issues raised in this writ petition.

¶31

He prays that no further orders may be issued against respondents 4 and 5 in this writ petition.

¶32

When I consider the afore narrative, it is without

¶33

WP(C).No.5159 OF 2019(T)

¶34

¶35

doubt that as matters now stand, the Panchayat and 5^th respondent have taken necessary decision to construct the retaining wall on the boundary of the petitioner's property and that all necessary concurrences and permissions for this has been obtained by the competent Authorities. I therefore, fail to understand why the Panchayat is not completing the work, even though they themselves have, through Ext.P10, set apart an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- for this purpose.

¶36

In the afore circumstances and for the reasons above, I order this writ petition and direct the 2^nd respondent - Grama Panchayat to immediately commence the work of the construction of the retaining wall on the boundary of the petitioner's property, as is evidenced through their decisions recorded in Exts.P10, P15 and P16; which work shall be commenced, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and completed without any avoidable delay thereafter.

¶37

SD/-

¶38

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

¶41

WP(C).No.5159 OF 2019(T)

¶42

¶43

APPENDIX

¶44

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶45

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE OF S.R.O.NILESHW	PARTITION DEED DATED 14.10.1992 ARAM.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY IN THE	PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PETITIONERS WATERLOGGED CONDITION.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE 18.6.2018 SUBMIT 2ND RESPONDENT T RECEIPT.	WRITTEN COMPLAINT DATED TED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE OGETHER WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ISSUED BY THE 2N	COMMUNICATION DATED 28.6.2018 D RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.	COMPLAINT DATED 26.7.2018 PETITIONER TO THE 5TH
EXHIBIT P5 A	TRUE COPY OF THE 30.7.2018 ISSUED	ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.	COMPLAINT DATED 16.8.2018 PETITIONER TO THE 5TH
EXHIBIT P6 A	TRUE COPY OF THE 21.8.2018 ISSUED	ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT DATED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE THE 2ND RESPONDE	LETTER DATED 7.9.2018 ISSUED BY NT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.	COMPLAINT DATED 7.9.2018 PETITIONER TO THE 1ST
EXHIBIT P8 A	TRUE COPY OF THE 14.9.2018 ISSUED	ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT.	REPORT FATED 24.10.2018 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT G	MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE RAMA PANCHAYAT HELD ON 28.9.2018.
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE 15.11.2018.	MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE 6.12.2018.	MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON

¶46

WP(C).No.5159 OF 2019(T)

¶47

¶48

EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE TEAM LEADER OBTAINED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 26.7.2019 WRITTEN BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.08.2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH HELD ON 27.08.2019 EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 28.06.2019 WRITTEN BY THE DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL) OF JALANIDHI

K.Ramanathan v. the District Collector, Kasaragod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Ramanathan v. the District Collector, Kasaragod

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

Sree Menothukavu Bhagavathi Temple Managing Committee Vs the State of Kerala

Mustaffa Thattancherry, Vs the Director of Panchayat

Sakeer Hussain, Vs State of Kerala

M.B Sathi Vs the District Collector

Manappuram Finance Limited, Vs the Secretary, Valappad Grama Panchayath

Eranjimannam Desam Sri Purattil Bhagawathi Kshethra Committeed Vs District Collector,Palakkad