Dismissed

T.B.Vijayan, v. Pothukal Grama Panchayath

Kerala HC3 Jan 2023WP(C)/3533/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of W.P. (C) No. 3533 of 2019 after recording a settlement agreement dated 26.08.2022 reached during mediation. The settlement resolved a dispute regarding building construction violations and water channel usage, with parties agreeing to regularization efforts. Third-party plaintiffs confirmed loss of interest in the underlying decree.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of as the settlement agreement was recorded and formed part of the judgment.

T.B.Vijayan, Vs Pothukal Grama Panchayath — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN "E I]IeH cOuRT OF KERALA AT ERNAi{uLAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

ThE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTIJAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 3RD DAY 0F JANUARY 2®23 / 13" P0uSHA, 1944

¶5

wprci NO. 3533 OF 2®i9

PETITIONER :

T . 8 , VI JAYAN ,

AGED 49 YEARS

S/0. BHASKARAN VYDHYAR, DAIVATHINVEETIL HOUSE, BH00THANAM COLONY P.0. , POTHUKAL, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT .

¶10

BY ADV U.K.DEVIDAS

¶11

RESPONDENTS :

¶12

1 POTHUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

¶13

POTHUKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679334,

¶14

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶15

•2

¶16

SECRETARY,

¶17

POTHUKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, POTHUKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT- 679334.

¶18

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

¶19

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION UNIT, P.M.G.S.Y, MALAPPURAM676505 .

¶20

BY ADV SUNIL KUMAR A.G (S.C.)

¶21

Smt. SHEYA BINOY (SR.G.P.)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION 0N ®3.©1,2023, THE COURT 0N THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

W.P. (C) No. 3533 of 2019

¶24

GME NT

¶25

The matter was referred to mediation for settlement as per order dated 30.05.2022. Pursuant to the same, the matter has been settled. Settlement agTeemelit dated 26.08.2022 is produced along with the I.eport of the Mediator. Settlement is recorded. The terms of settlement shall form part of this Judgment.

¶26

Wifit petition is disposed of.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

MURAL.I PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

¶29

Sam

¶30

W.P. (C) No. 3533 of 2019

¶31

APPENDIX OF WP(C1 3533/2®19

¶32

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶33

Exhibit P 9	TRUE COPY 0F THE RE	CEIPT DATED 22.12.2022
	ISSUED BY THE FIRST	RESPONDENT T0 THE-
	PETITI0NER

¶34

Exhibit Plo	TRUE COPY 0F THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT DATED 22.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT T0 THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit Pll	TRUE COPY 0F THE NOTICE DATED 22.12.2022 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT T0 THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P

¶35

EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY 0F THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND
	RESPONDENT DATED 19.06.2017.

¶36

EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY 0F THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
	BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.07.2018.

¶37

EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY 0F THE	LETTER ISSUED T0 THE
	PETITIONER BY THE	THIRD RESPONDENT DATED
	04 . 07 I 2017 .

¶38

EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY 0F THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.08.Z®18
	IN W.P.{C)NO.26084 0F 2018.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY 0F THE STATEMENT DATED 16.1Q.2018
	SUBMITTED BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶39

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20.10.2018` EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY 0F THE DECREE IN 0.S,NO.220/2001 ON THE FILES 0F THE MUNSIFF COURT, MANJERI DATED 05.®3.2005.

¶40

.i) . t' I , ,- `'\ .1 +

¶41

BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

AT ERNAKULAM

WPIC}. No.3533/2019

T.B Vijayan

Petit:ioner

Vs.

Pothukal Grama panchaya[h &Others : Respondents

¶48

Mediated Settlement Agreep±ep±

¶49

{Under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 23 of the Civil Procedure (ADR) Rules, 2008)

¶50

)®

¶51

The petitioner in the writ petition is the exclusive owner of property of 0.0202 Hectares of land in Survey No.975/1 of the Pothukal Village by virtue of the deed No.1247/06 of SRO, Edakara. The dispute arose when the Petitioner started construction of a building in t:he said property when a 3rd party approached the lst respondent Panchayath stating that there has been a violation of the decree passed in OS.No.220/2001 on 05/03/2005 by t:he Munsiff Court, Manjeri wherein an injunction is there restraining the petitioner from filling the Thodu in the said property or making alterations to convert it as a pathway or Road. Thereafter the 2r;d responc!ent, the Executive Engineer Programme lmplementation Unit, P.M,G.S.Y,

¶52

i;i€~:-,=``,i;:L,7.:, i
A
` -,,-.'. . A J<br>

¶53

t ; SECREjTARY<br>Po{hu-kJIJGramapanchayat
•M3::::,aanm%i°ngn:yg!±334
•',:. ;i
Fri:04931240442
•1`}-n,

¶54

Ta>.cuJkerd-giv

¶55

fi,,

¶56

keralaslaleMedjationandconcHiationcentre High Court of Kerala Kochj -682 031

¶57

3 5-

¶58

•-~ I ,\ 1,.,

¶59

Malappuram made a new water channel through the property of t:he petitioner with the knowledge of the lst respondent Panchayath and the work was completed in the light of the objection raised citing the Decree and Judgment in OS.No.222/2001, the lst respondent issued stop memo against the construction of the commercial building by the petitioner. The writ petition was referred for mediation .

¶60

The petitioner and the respondents participated in the mediation and they have come t:o a settlement on the following terms and conditions:-

¶61

¶62

The plaintiffs in proceedings, OS.No.220/2001, K.Sainudheen, S/o.All and Jamaludheen S, S/o,Alavi who are third parties in t:he above Writ Pet:ition have given affidavits attested by a Notary to the effect that in the light of the construction of a new water channel t:he t:hodu described in t:he decree and I.udgment in O.S. 220/2001, is no more in use and hence plaintiffs are not interested in executing the said decree passed against the petitioner. The said affidavit:5 execut:ed by K.Sainudheen, S/o.Ali and jamaludheen S, S/o.A!avi, on 12th July 2022 are annexed herewith as Annexures A &_ 8_

¶63

2LThe 3rd respondent has already informed that the above new water channel is construct:ed under the PMGSY scheme, (as per Exhibit P4 in the Writ Petit:ion).

¶64

i.A.,Dgnd

¶65

SECRETARYPothukalluGramaPanchayat. . I h^. . Bhoodan Colony P.O J ,J , (-. - ±'1 iin" .Itirl",,U, ` ,

¶66

Kerala Stale Hi.ghCourtofKera`a:*an_!eonciliationceni':e I,-L. -_

¶67

¶68

tI . ., ` h ' + < C^

¶69

The petitioner hereby undertakes that since the permit issued in his name by the first respondent has expired on 15.03.2020, and construction is to be completed, he shall submit an application before the lst respondent Panchayath for getting the Exhibit Pl permit renewed or to regularise t:he construction of the building.

¶70

In the light of the terms of settlement t:he lst respondent will consider the .application filed by the petitioner for renewal of permit or for regularisation of t:he building as the case may be,

¶71

In the light of the terms c)f settlement, t:he above writ petition may be disposed of.

¶72

Dated t:his I:he 26th day of August, 2022.

¶73

petitioner -T.Bvijayan cr. g` cilJlgcul EL

¶74

Respondents

¶75

¶76

1.E::h#[sGsr:c|..:€E3;~;-qTqu}?¥i`th

¶77

d-.,f! ;,,-,-. ``,-,:,-I..... `{-

¶78

Secretary ''' ,` Pothukal Grama 'Panchaya[h

¶79

-€:'-\!,call:-I-
_ _ .----.. _ ,<br>'rf.;.:~r,I::4<`
I?„i``.!
<lt,1CL'lqe A , H.-,
'rL

¶80

Bhoodan Colony P.O

¶81

L74\|&eo3

¶82

kerala Sta(e Mediation and Conciliation Centre Higtl Court of Kerala Kcohi -682 031

¶83

12/10/2022,16:10

¶84

Minutes

¶85

affected and going by clause 4 of mediation settlement agreement Panchayath only agree to consider petitioner's appljcati with law Hence, there is no legal impediment for the Secretary to sign mediation settlement agreement. As there is no und Panchayath that favorable orders will be passed on

¶86

pctitioner's application, Panchayath Committee can take a decision on his application, for renewal of permit or for regularization calling for

¶87

objections, if any, c>r after hearing affected parties, if necessary.

¶88

A.G SUNIL KUMAR
Advocate

¶89

(±@>1. QJlg2QDf6 , 6]6)r3oua}ro]1rB QJlslwi3 rfl)(TT)cuff crLj)apdingr ©]arLi6ml)®iowu nd®1cmpjo oj)6tuled ou6rr)1e35)ouco5coyo)1mu mlflaol
96ne]QDlco(in o®)su cold3,(ore)1 mld3mlLal®]6)6rT)(mo (arg®cou 6mgQ.Dc6"01 QcfomJlrLou cdbJscolQz)6)s O.S No.220 of 2001 culcl)1cQ!6)
cB,)6TT)1jif eJ@lj2] rLJ®JcolQ2!6)s (msl(run)in(ore)led (aracmJrod6rDo ms®To)1® rLJ6maJ)®(ore)U 6)in)©5ol g2o mlfom)6mo cco,)sol
uloni]cQ7o5TtDu ®]E=Ual§ 6¢T3£6is eiorLe]mo nfl)(mlorQ#6)s t8rasltT\icDmcoled 6)ul fl®19V o9 6)alqB msulsl6)ce6)col6)® (col. QJl gi cDnd ng)
6>6>A17ccs67]s®1 f@tnj]67cB, rL06Efl rLDQ2ied 6>[alq2)ce.Qa].6mu 96maen>cOu. (9tT\aco cc9,tT]u 9gap®1foqd.cO6iT>6iDtn7v fli®ctloDb67q]§u sl
q)(nJJ6)dfa t8raGulcon4 (T)aidqLflco63dbQ86ne)®1. 67uld}D19' o3 67alvyQJJco6m)cQ) cB,]®6m6cT3(fl oleimledce6?mQi®)6)6m(mv c
oc)8inle]o 67co,ilso (§glChlg3®fl3 ng)cmChd grLJgactla)Jflcooo ol6mlj2|®)cQ)calm)e]o , all ng)a gil ng)troy 6]67ru rLlcocol
mldrmljal G®]slcnu sl®]CT8 6>rL]]g293cnco.edrd©5o q)n8colfotoro>1 trune]o rul§ mctcB.co,cQ!o cr>16t©]Sce6`U ®sc"6teds]6t
67ulJg293cD6mo8co6>' Qrlc®]co(cjsD]ce671 DJ8cfocQ))6mu 96n3J®67®(TT)u c6")cD567rdsa»1m]Ego mlejoulei6n3JCDlee(in
gimen©Chco5)6coQo cocol oJLfl®®V dbJ®6mo (runeJ(oT@V nJ)ol(TuolcolcB> QjqRen(fl g26)R!(mo ccDJcoo co,6)6me
ml®cD]nlcGt;DtejcB]]o q)gg ms rLlsl d3,(ri} tn.j}cB,ol[3] aJT®cn)aDld8 6]o (8Tosltrun]mtoro>1 ed slcn)]ml ed ml(rmo od3,)5®1 67j2I ei cHo
EE!9s]cB6>1 cQ> cc®rGdo cdm>u 63gE ®1fifdDco63mcolcDu c®jcoo tcraocolcB,]@o in edco,l ®1coo]cDljal.

¶90

c®)co msrLisld3,cfa 12:20 PM -mu(8Taoum))mlE3d.
****************
coru!fflchcotlL}¥;£§p::#:in;}¥§¥ofat

¶91

https://meeting.Isgkerala.gov.in/Pages/Minutes.aspx

39/39

12/10/2022 , 16: 10

Minutes

dioo]m oulou®6mo :-

crLJ)gapcB,gr ©JDrLJ6mJ)Q2)cola@6)a 9smio®Q2l) e]99 6"cEN]o@ol 6)ei cs,ocLo6§u a(a)rQacfo g!ulcQ2)3cobo]6]6mEB,1e]o g2cov cel eio 6.alq3r met caooi]d5uc(a;rfflrfa6)oul®1ru.eim6)alelqjcB,U6rLj6mu)®co)`6mumlflq]of)1[alChco(m®u.®oB®d3,orLod§VctQ}rflndceiejo6]alqEucoedco,1 Qieeo)mo Eie5ai)d3.6iDtTT>u c®)coo QjleiQ2lj aBrrm>l flT®®®1o@67o oraslcrun]mcol ed cB,orLDfl§u ccesrffl08 cei ELio 6ialq!u medca]cm®1cDV cDsrLii tn.jlcB,®lc863tm®lmv c®]coo taTa ocffl co®o mwhco,1 col aBfa)ml.al.

¶98

ena6rB:-

¶99

©Dcoul6muD®ton»uasTDcrLn®1eigg6"cri>ucav.fl@tujugc@6iqd§@ailtaragtTT>u®1567rdsgg!tm®utnjo6nJouj51jif aJ]®ch ®mu@ :-??? 2 -2091/22

¶100

diaBai]m cri"a :- 1

¶101

dico®,®o :-

¶102

alenJ]®toro>1cfa67ogsntTuocoa)led6"c58]cfaolejggonaE]ot87o®ldtaro]1®1®lEtn>o®c9]g±1caetrT7colcD-®1flBD]olial.

¶103

¶104

crLljg!pca,er©3DrLj6Taijcoja5Tc)V6ni(a;]Q@oldsul6mi)®(oTcolo@6)ogsmioaD®1e}gfcrunej6m(fl(roo®d33g41d}63(TT)colcD)®ltaTacol6a5roild3,{/5 (n)o®d3fllcB63(TT)®1mo (rvaJm c6"Jfl(\13ce>(fl cruo)rLJlcoon)colcroo c®Jcoo eeocr)1d3.J®o coedd3.1 col ee a)olE3d.

¶105

omg6ma:-

¶106

6nJ9Q.6)6)rLr)ccecoswilofl6)ejWP(C)3533/2019mcr}i©ccB,Of\edOflcn)cai)ulcecrdcryccorfl4aaflcuflccn)rE4a@6)cr)Slct6)ad@d'63tl6)olco6+co6] nda])ds mml© :-S 1B391 /2017

¶107

t8raco6r6r2ilmTu))aro6zicfrtfacB,%rroco, - cout :- 1

¶108

fl5nenom :-

¶109

cccosofl 6ul eiQJ' prDsjedl oc8,mJ 63gEdifled]co6]maloy ccQ>Dcr>o cootffltB,]oo medca? edonaerfu3d.

¶110

di®ai)in OfloJo6mo :-

¶111

(§omoJ6mJ]cQ)ed\cry ooof\6)® (§S.Oflt=cQicfa,6i6ieoioflctnflj\ch ncomQid 6mgQ.6)6)of)cco6).soflcQ;\ct maj3d};;1a7 Gc8,Ofctdlcut\c®oadcfo 67 63ed6>Qi d)63(mcolmu q)(Tm®1 (Sg)a ul6Tnl]®toroilmv cou6nel Qi.€1co63cm (ova(u)I. quml edd3,®)d rL6)rmcu®1ch mltm o ml®ca]ulcccoo cu)6m6m6>, @®6m(T) a]1®1cQ2)3cr) o ®lcoa])m6)Ds(oro>1co(in. (8Tg®®1cfo6>o (arosltrui])in(oroilct eiB5D)® tlQi67s (ngall pind>6)(in ml ®Go)nlG@coo OQD)coo

¶112

Tc)

¶113

The Secretary

¶114

Pothukal Grama Panchayat

¶115

Sub: Legal opinion

¶116

F`ef: Your c)fflce letter No. S1/3391/2017 dtd. 02.09.2022-regarding.

¶117

This is in reply to your above referred letter received through e-mail, seeking legal opinion regarding mediation in W.P (c) No. 35 pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The above case was filed by T.B Vijayan challenging Ext.P7 order cancel permit. Upon receipt of notice Panchayath entered appearance and fned counter affidavit. F'ending consideration, the case I mediaticin at Mediation Center, attached to the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The building permit issued to T.B Vijayan was can( mass petition stating violation of judgment and decree passed by Munsiff's Court, Manjeri in O.S No.220 of 2001, by which through eastern side of subject property was filled up by him. The original suit was filed by K. Sainudeen and others before Manjeri, restraining defendants therein from filling up of thodu' shown in the plaint schedule. A .thodu' was constructed by under PMGSY project, on western side of petitioner's property connecting another thodu' with his consent and constructio completed on 20.12.2012. Though it is evident

¶118

from available document that subject `thodu' was filled up by T.B Vijayan, no action was taken by plaintiffs therein against him f( or getting the decree executed. The attitude on the part of plaintiffs therein would shc)w that they are nc)t keen in prosecutin of decree. In the mediation, notarized affidavits sworn in by plaintiffs therein were produced to show that disputes between settled out of court and they will not proceed with execution of decree Further they also stated that have no further grievan( Vijayan. Though

¶119

thodu' on eastern side of subject property was filled up, a thodu' was formed on western Side of T.B Vij.ayan's property. As th( western side connects another thodu', free flow of water is no way affected. On a perusal of documents, it is revealed that party to original suit and hence,judgment and decree is not binding on Panchayat. Going by clause 4 of mediation settleme respondent will consider the application to be submitted by T.B Vijayan for renewal of permit or for regularization of building may be. As per S. 218 (1 ) of Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, all public water courses are vested with Village Panchayath and n right to alter, convert or fill up

¶120

the same without obtaining any prior permission or sanction from Panchayath and 22(4) of Kerala Panchayath F`aj Building Rule

¶121

https://meeting.Isgkerala.gov.in/Pages/Minutes.aspx

¶122

38/39

T.B.Vijayan, v. Pothukal Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.B.Vijayan, v. Pothukal Grama Panchayath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devna Sumesh Vs the State of Kerala

Bhadra S. Nair (Minor) Vs the Director of General Education

Aadi Sreyas Vs State of Kerala

Rajamma Vs the District Collector

Jainy Simon Vs Konni Grama Panchayat

K.K. Akbar Vs the Secretary