Disposed
Scotti K.A v. Salim
Kerala HCWP(C)/7454/2019
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
WEDNESDAY,THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 22ND PHALGUNA, 1940
WP(C).No. 7454 of 2019
PETITIONER/S:
SCOTTI K.A AGED 48 YEARS S/O.JOSEPH APPACHAN, KOOTUNGAL HOUSE, NAD, NOCHIMA, ALUVA.
BY ADVS. SRI.LIFFY P. FRANCIS SRI.C.D.JOHNY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SALIM, AGED 45 YEARS, S/O.SREEDHARAN, BLAVATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR POTTACHIRA TEMPLE, N.A.D.P.O., ALUVA, PIN-683101.
2 BABY, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.SALIM, BLAVATHUPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR POTTACHIRA TEMPLE, N.A.D.P.O., ALUVA, PIN-683101.
3 EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, EDATHALA, ALUVA, PIN-683561.
R3. SRI.RAAJESH S.SUBRAHMANIAN, SC, EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 7454 of 2019 2
JUDGMENT
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent Panchayath. In view of the limited nature of the order, I propose to pass notice to R1 and R2 is dispensed with. According to the petitioner, some constructions are carried out by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, illegally and in violation of the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules, 2011. Being aggrieved, petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 before the Secretary of the 3rd respondent seeks only direction for consideration of Ext.P3 on an early basis.
WP(C).No. 7454 of 2019 3
of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent Nos. 1 and 2. I make it clear that the directions made above, shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter or rival interest of the parties.
The writ petition is disposed of, accordingly.
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
JUDGE
Hmh
WP(C).No. 7454 of 2019 4
APPENDIX
| PETITIONER'S/ | S EXHIBITS: | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| EXHIBIT P1 | TRUE ALUVA FAVOU |
COPY OF THE SRO DATED 9 R OF THE PET |
SALE DEED NO.87/2018 OF .1.2018 EXECUTED IN ITIONER. |
| EXHIBIT P2 | TRUE VILLA DATED |
COPY OF THE GE OFFICER, 10.10.2017. |
SKETCH PREPARED BY THE ALUVA WEST VILLAGE |
| EXHIBIT P3 | TRUE PETIT DATED |
COPY OF THE IONER BEFORE 26.2.2019. |
COMPLAINT FILED BY THE THE 3RD RESPONDENT |
RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to dispose the writ petition regarding illegal construction compliance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SCOTTI K.A
SALIM
BABY
EDATHALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
SHAJI P.CHALY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court