Disposed

Suresh P.R v. Erattupetta Municipality

Kerala HC23 Nov 2021WP(C)/8844/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam disposed of a writ petition challenging a conditional order allowing construction subject to a survey. The Court declined to interfere with the conditional order but directed the Taluk Surveyor to complete the survey within one month, directing notice be given to all parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 3rd respondent to complete the survey within one month, giving notice to petitioner and others; consequential order by Municipality based on report.

Suresh P.R Vs Erattupetta Municipality — Landlord and Tenant | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 8844 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SURESH P.R AGED 51 YEARS S/O. RAJAPPAN, PARAYIL HOUSE, ARUVITHURA P.O, COLLEGE ROAD, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 522 BY ADVS. LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM SMT.REXY ELIZABETH THOMAS SRI.RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE SHRI.TOM E. JACOB

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY, ERATTUPETTA P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 121 2 THE SECRETARY, ERATTUPETTA MUNICIPALITY, ERATTUPETTA P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 121 3 TALUK SURVEYOR, MEENACHIL TALUK OFFICE, MINI CIVIL STATION PALA P.O, KOTTAYAM 686 575 4 CHARLES JOSE, AGED 47 YEARS THADIKKAL HOUSE, ARUVITHURA P.O, ERATTUPETTA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 122

¶10

WP(C) NO.8844/2021

¶11

¶12

BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED,SC,ERATTUPETTA GRA SHRI.JAWAHAR JOSE

¶13

SMT.DEEPA NARAYANAN, SENIOR GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO.8844/2021

¶16

¶17

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶18

W.P.(C)No.8844 of 2021

¶19

Dated this the 23^rd day of November, 2021

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The above writ petition is filed with

¶22

following prayers:

¶23

“i) Call for the records leading to the passing of Exhibit P10 order and to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction.

¶24

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction directing the 3^rd respondent to measure out the properties mentioned in Exhibit P10 order and to submit the plan before the 2^nd respondent within a stipulated time limit as fixed by this Honourable Court.

¶25

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ or Order or direction directing the 2^nd respondent to reconsider the issue of unauthorised construction and to finalise the said proceedings as directed in Exhibit P8 judgment.

¶26

iv) grant such other reliefs which

¶27

¶28

WP(C) NO.8844/2021

¶29

this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶30

2. The writ petition is mainly filed challenging Ext.P10. Ext.P10 is an order allowing the 4^th respondent to make certain constructions subject to a survey to be conducted by the Taluk Surveyor. In Ext.P10 it is clearly stated that, if in the survey, it is found that the construction is illegal, the 4^th respondent has to demolish the structure. On that condition Ext.P10 order allowing the construction was passed by the 2^nd respondent. Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.

¶31

3. After hearing both sides, I think there is nothing to interfere with Ext.P10. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Secretary of the Municipality can not pass a conditional order like Ext.P10. A perusal of Ext.P10 will show that the construction is allowed subject to the survey

¶32

to be conducted and in the survey if it is

¶33

WP(C) NO.8844/2021

¶34

¶35

found that there is illegal construction, the 4^th respondent is bound to demolish the structure. The reason for passing such an order is also clear from Ext.P10. I see no reason to interfere with Ext.P10. Then the question is about the delay in the survey which is mentioned in Ext.P10. According to me, there can be a time limit for conducting the survey mentioned in Ext.P10 order. The

¶36

authority concerned can be directed to complete the survey within a time frame so that there will be a quietus to the entire issue.

¶37

Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the following manner:

¶38

(i) The 3^rd respondent is directed to

¶39

complete the survey mentioned in Ext.P10, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of

¶40

a copy of this judgment.

¶41

(ii) While doing the survey, the 3^rd

¶42

WP(C) NO.8844/2021 6

¶43

respondent will give notice to the petitioner, 1^st respondent and 4^th respondent. (iii) Based on the survey report, consequential order will be passed by the Municipality.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

WP(C) NO.8844/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8844/2021

¶50

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶51

EXHIBIT P1 THE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 16-07-2020 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE-ERATTUPETTA

¶52

EXHIBIT P2 THE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. 169/2015-16 DATED 18-1-2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT (RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT

¶53

EXHIBIT P3 THE COPY OF THE PLAN PREPARED BY A PRIVATE SURVEYOR (RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT) SHOWING THE EXTENT OF THE PROPERTY IN RESURVEY NO. 49/1/14 IN BLOCK NO. 47 OF ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE.

¶54

EXHIBIT P4 THE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO. 169/15-16 DATED 1-3-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶55

EXHIBIT P5 THE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11-042017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶56

EXHIBIT P6 THE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. 7331/17/G1 DATED 24-11-2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REGARDING THE GRANTING OF OCCUPANCY IN FAVOUR OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶57

EXHIBIT P7 THE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S NO. 19/2018 BEFORE THE MUNSIFF'S COURT, ERATTUPETTA

¶58

EXHIBIT P8 THE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 10-11-2020 IN W.P(C0 NO. 13556 OF 2018 AND 28382/2018 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXHIBIT P9 THE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 30-

¶59

WP(C) NO.8844/2021

¶60

¶61

12-2020 SUBMIUTTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P10 THE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. H14879/17 DATED 10-03-2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT-SECRETARY. EXHIBIT P11 THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1957/2009. EXHIBIT P11(A) THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1354/05. EXHIBIT P11(B) THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.2956/1992. EXHIBIT P12 THE COPY OF THE FILE RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT RELATED TO THE HEARING THAT LEAD TO THE PASSING OF EXHIBIT P10 ORDER. EXHIBIT P12(A) THE COPY OF THE FILE RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT RELATED TO THE MEASUREMENT PROPOSED ON 3.2.2021.

¶62

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL

¶63

//TRUE COPY//

¶64

PA TO JUDGE

Suresh P.R v. Erattupetta Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh P.R v. Erattupetta Municipality

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

Nixon S Vs the District Collector

Vinay Shanker Vs Union of India

Nizar Koya Thangal Vs Gail India Limited

Anirudhan Vs State of Kerala

Lilly Vs the State of Kerala

Mohanan Nair Vs the Forest Range Officer