Disposed

Annamma Joseph v. the District Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC11 Nov 2020WP(C)/15919/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, holding valid building, development, and earth removal permits, sought directions to prevent neighbors from obstructing land levelling for construction. The court directed the police and others to intervene and protect the petitioner's lawful work. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to intervene and offer protection to the petitioner if obstruction is caused by neighbors during the levelling of the property.

Annamma Joseph Vs the District Superintendent of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020 / 20TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.15919 OF 2020(L)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANNAMMA JOSEPH, AGED 60 YEARS, W/O.JOSEPH ANTONY, KARINGANAMATTOM VEEDU, MANIKKULAM BHAGOM, NEDUNKUNNAM VILLAGE, CHANGANACHERRY TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.RENJIT GEORGE SHRI.JOSSY S. KATTUR SRI.C.IJLAL SMT.UMMUL FIDA SRI.ARUN CHAND SRI.JOSEPH MARY DAS SHRI.BHARAT VIJAY P. SHRI.JAI GOVIND M.J. SHRI.MAJID MUHAMMED K. SHRI.ANANDU R.

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOTTAYAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686002. 2 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KARUKACHAL POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 540. 3 YOHANNAN, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, KARAPPALLIL VEEDU, MANTHURUTHY P.O., NEDUNKUNNAM, CHANAGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM - 686 542. 4 BASIL, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH CHERIYAN, PATHALIL VEEDU, NEDUNKUNNAM, CHANAGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM - 686 542.

¶10

SRI K P HARISH, SR GP

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.11.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C).No.15919 OF 2020

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Petitioner states that she is the absolute owner in title and possession of property having an extent of 20.08 Ares in Re-survey No.30/2 of the Nedukunnam Village. For the purpose of constructing a residential building, she approached the Nedukunnam Panchayat and obtained Ext.P1 building permit. Based on her application, she was issued with a Development Permit for the purpose of development of the property as is evidenced by Ext.P2. In order to carry out the construction, some amount of earth had to be removed. In the said circumstances, she approached the Department of Mining and Geology, Kottayam and by Ext.P3 order, she was permitted to remove about 3584 metric tons of ordinary earth on payment of royalty of a sum of Rs.71,680/-. Armed with these permits and permissions, when she attempted to remove the earth, she was faced with objections from respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are her neighbours. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have no authority to interfere with the construction. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court seeking direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to maintain law and order and to ensure that the respondents 3 and 4 do not cause any obstruction in the levelling of the land in terms of Exts.P1 to P3.

¶16

WP(C).No.15919 OF 2020

¶17

¶18

Notice was issued to respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the same is seen served. However, there is no appearance for them.

¶19

The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that what

¶20

the petitioner has been doing is legitimate and legal so long as she complies with the terms of the permit which has been issued to her.

¶21

I find from the records that the petitioner has applied for and obtained permits for development of the land and to carry out construction after removing some amount of earth. There is no justification on the part of the party respondents in causing any obstruction. If the petitioner carries out the work strictly in terms of Ext.P1 to P3, and if any obstruction is caused by the party respondents, the respondents 1 and 2 shall intervene and offer protection to carry out the levelling of the property and to proceed with the construction.

¶22

This writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

¶27

WP(C).No.15919 OF 2020

¶28

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶31

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT NO.A2BA (113819)/2019 DATED 08/05/2019 ISSUED BY NEDUKUNNAM PANACHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶32

EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.A2-B2 (131165)/2019 DATED 31/05/2019 ISSUED BY NEDUKUNNAM PANCHAYAT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.741/20192020/1755/DOY/ML/2019 DATED 04/12/2019 ISSUED BY THE MINING AND GEOLOGY DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE EXCEPTS FROM MALAYALA MANORAMA NEWSPAPER ON 14/12/2019. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 03/07/2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03/07/2020 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 06/07/2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶33

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶34

//TRUE COPY// P.A TO JUDGE

Annamma Joseph v. the District Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annamma Joseph v. the District Superintendent of Police

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

Johny Thomas Vs District Collector

Ramesh M.B., Vs the Transport Commissioner

Thankaraj Vs State of Kerala

Jayaprasad Pillai Vs the District Collector

P.Rajan Vs the State of Kerala

Indus Towers Limited, Vs the District Police Chief