Disposed

Anupama Ramachandran v. the Muncipal Council Palakkad Muncipality

Kerala HC16 Nov 2022WP(C)/22655/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought directions to direct the Municipal Council Secretary to consider a lease application for puramboke land and place it before the Council for adecision within mandated timeframes.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P3 after hearing petitioners and place before the 1st respondent within one month; the 1st respondent to decide within two months thereafter.

Anupama Ramachandran Vs the Muncipal Council… — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022/ 25TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 22655 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 ANUPAMA RAMACHANDRAN

¶8

AGED 35 YEARS W/O DR. JAIKRISHNAN SUDAKSHINA, VINAYAKA NAGAR, THAREKODE, PALAKKAD, PIN: 678001.

¶9

2 YAMUNA DEVI, AGED 73 YEARS, W/O V. RAVINDRANATHAN SUDAKSHINA, VINAYAKA NAGAR, THAREKODE, PALAKKAD, PIN: 678001.

¶10

BY ADV KAVERY S THAMPI

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 THE MUNCIPAL COUNCIL PALAKKAD MUNCIPALITY PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD, PIN: 678 001.

¶13

2 THE SECRETARY, PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN: 678 001.

¶14

3 THE PALAKKAD MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN: 678 001.

¶15

BY ADV.

¶16

SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R1 TO R3.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C) NO.22655 of 2022

¶19

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Dated this the 16^th day of November, 2022

¶22

The petitioners, who are mother in law and daughter in law, are before this Court seeking to direct the 2^nd respondentSecretary to the Municipality to place Ext.P3 representation before the 1^st respondent-Municipal Council in the next meeting and to direct the 1^st respondent to take a decision within a time frame.

¶23

The petitioners own 2.4 Cents of land in Re-Survey No.1499/24 in Palakkad-II Village, Palakkad Taluk in Palakkad District. The 1^st petitioner is running an Ayurveda Clinic there. On

¶24

the western and northern side of the property of the petitioners, there is a puramboke property. The petitioners are in need of the said puramboke land for more beneficial use of their property. The

¶25

WP(C) NO.22655 of 2022

¶26

¶27

petitioners therefore submitted Ext.P3 application seeking lease of the said land for puramboke property.

¶28

Taking into consideration the fact that the Municipal Council is the competent authority to consider such application and considering also the fact that Ext.P3 is a statutory application, this Court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of giving appropriate directions.

¶29

In the circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent-Secretary to consider Ext.P3 representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and place the matter before the 1^st respondentMunicipal Council within a period of one month. The 1^st respondent-Municipal Council shall take appropriate decision in the matter within a period of two months thereafter.

¶30

N. NAGARESH

¶31

sss

¶32

WP(C) NO.22655 of 2022

¶33

¶34

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22655/2022

¶35

PETITIONERS' EXHIBIT

¶36

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER FROM PALAKKAD VILLAGE OFFICE 2 DATED 17.05.2022. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED IN FAVOR OF THE PETITIONER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR 20222023 DATED 25.04.2022. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.08.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH HER MOTHER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE 3RD RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY DATED 16.08.2021.

Anupama Ramachandran v. the Muncipal Council Palakkad Muncipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anupama Ramachandran v. the Muncipal Council Palakkad Muncipality

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

Romeena Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Rasheeda Ali Vs Pathanapuram Grama Panchayath

V.Rajasekhar Vs the Palakkad Municipality

P.Bhuvanendra Rao Vs M/S. Coral Shelters & Builders Private Limited

Abdurahiman A.K. Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirur

Sealand Builders Pvt. Ltd., Vs the District Collector