Partly allowed

K.C.Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Jun 2024WP(C)/10435/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Government's appellate order permitting a concrete vault type burial ground, alleging the Karumalloor Grama Panchayat was not heard. The Government Pleader confirmed the Panchayat was not heard. The Court set aside the appellate and consequential orders and directed fresh reconsideration of the appeal after hearing all affected parties within two months.

What the court decided

AI extract

K.C.Babu Vs State of Kerala — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 5^TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 10435 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

K.C.BABU

¶8

KADUVAPARAMBIL, PUDUKAD, THATTAMPADI, KARUMALLOOR P.O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683511

¶9

BY ADVS. A.JAYASANKAR MANU GOVIND

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (DB) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶12

2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI 682 030

¶13

3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ERNAKULAM (RURAL), ALUVA 683 101

¶14

4 DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER(HEALTH), ERNAKULAM 682 011

¶15

5 DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, ERNAKULAM, CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, KOCHI 682 030

¶16

6 KARUMALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KARUMALLOOR P.O, 683511

¶17

W.P.(C)NO.10435 of 2020

¶18

¶19

7 NOORUL EMAN JUMA MASJID, PUDUKAD, KARUMALLOOR P.O, 683511 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY C.S SHANAWAS

¶20

8 HASEENA BEEGUM A UNDER SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT (DB) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 BY ADVS. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.C.ANIL KUMAR SRI. AJMAL V. A. SMT.A.K.PREETHA T.H.ABDUL AZEEZ(K/149/1970)

¶21

OTHER PRESENT:

¶22

SRI. BIMAL K NATH- SR. GP

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05.06.2024, THE

¶24

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

W.P.(C)NO.10435 of 2020

¶26

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P17 order passed by the first respondent disposing appeal against Ext.P8 order.

¶29

By Ext.P17 order, the seventh respondent is allowed to construct a concrete vault type burial ground. Ext.P18 is the order passed by the second respondent consequent to Ext.P17 appellate order. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P17 order on the ground that the local authority viz. respondent No.6 Panchayat was not heard before passing Ext.P17 order.

¶30

The respondent No.6 Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit supporting the contention of the petitioner that the sixth respondent was not heard before passing Ext.P17 order.

¶31

The learned counsel for 7^th respondent points out

¶32

W.P.(C)NO.10435 of 2020

¶33

¶34

that the Government had earlier considered the appeal against Ext.P8 and the same was challenged by the very same petitioner before this Court and finding that the petitioner was not heard in the matter, this Court, as per Ext.P13 judgment directed to reconsider the appeal after setting aside the earlier appellate order passed by the first respondent. Thereafter, all the interested persons were heard and the Panchayat was also represented through the Assistant Director of Panchayat.

¶35

On 28.05.2020, this Court passed an interim order directing the learned Government Pleader to verify whether the Panchayat was heard before passing Ext.P17 order.

¶36

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Pleader submits that the Panchayat was not heard before passing Ext.P17 order.

¶37

The contention of the learned counsel for the 7^th respondent that the Panchayat was represented by the Assistant Director of Panchayat during the hearing of the appeal is unsustainable since the Assistant Director of

¶38

W.P.(C)NO.10435 of 2020

¶39

¶40

Panchayat is not an officer of the Panchayat. It appears from the pleadings that the Panchayat had objected the opening of the proposed concrete vault type burial ground and hence

¶41

I find the Panchayat ought to have been heard before passing Ext.P17 order.

¶42

The learned counsel for the 7^th respondent Juma Masjid pointed out that though it filed Application as early as in 2015, it could not open the Burial ground even now, on account of the technical objections raised by the parties and the members within the limits of the 7^th respondent have been experiencing lot of difficulties for want of place for the burial of the dead bodies. Though it is true that there is inordinate delay in completing the proceedings on account of the series of orders and litigations, but, this Court will not be justified in confirming Ext.P17 when it is found that a necessary party was not heard.

¶43

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of setting aside Ext.P17 Appellate Order and P18 consequential order and directing the first respondent to reconsider the appeal

¶44

W.P.(C)NO.10435 of 2020

¶45

¶46

filed by respondent No.7 afresh, after hearing all the affected parties, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE

¶49

Shg

¶50

W.P.(C)NO.10435 of 2020

¶51

¶52

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10435/2020

¶53

PETITIONER EXHIB	ITS
EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO. DDIS/33366/07/M5 DATED 22-09-2017 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 02-09-2013
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD AT RESIDENCE OF WND RESPONDENT ON 14-09-2013
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. M5/57971/13 DATED 20-09-2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27-05-2014 IN WPC NO. 30948/2013 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26-11-2014 IN WPC NO. 31146/2013 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT NO. L.DIS (C2)-4797/14 DATED 21- 04-2014 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO 57971/13/M5 DATED 21-02- 2014 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03-11-2015 IN WPC NO. 32843/2015 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED 31-12-2015 ADOPTED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 04-01-2016 FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(RT) NO 1905/16/LSGD DATED 10- 06-2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21-05-2019 IN WA NO. 1213/2019 AND WA 1216/2019 AND WA 1216/2019 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 28-09-2019 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 11-11-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶54

W.P.(C)NO.10435 of 2020

¶55

¶56

EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DB3/71/2019/LSGD DATED 04-12- 2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O(RT) NO. 340/2020/LSGD) DATED 08-02-2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P18	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06- 03-2020
RESPONDENTS' EXTS
EXT.R7(a)	TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH DATED 21.04.2014.
EXT.R7(b)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PREPARED BY THE TAHSILDAR AND FORWARDED TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 21.08.2019.
EXT.R7(c)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 20.01.2020 FROM TAHSILDAR. PARAVUR TO THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM
EXT.R7(d)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FORWARDED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (LSGD) DATED 28.01.2020
EXT.R7(e)	TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 28.09.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR TO THE SECRETARY (LSGD)
EXT.R7(f)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE ALANGAD JAMATH COMMITTEE TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT EXPRESSING THEIR INCONVENIENCE DATED 28.07.2013
EXT.R7(g)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE NEERKODE JUMA MASJID TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT 29-3-2014
EXT.R7(h)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE VANIYAKKAD MUSLIM JAMA-ATH COMMITTEE TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT 26-3-2014
EXT.R7(i)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PATTALAM MUSLIM JAMA-ATH TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT. 15-3-2014
EXT.R7(j)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE PARAPPURAM JAMA MASJID TO THE 7TH RESPONDENT. 26-3-2014
EXT.R7(k)	TRUE COPY OF THE LICENSE ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR DATED 22.05.2020
EXT.R7(l)	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLETION REPORT DATED 10.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER

K.C.Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

K.C.Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sadasivan Vs State of Kerala

P.N.Eswaran Vs the Secretary, Manjoor Grama Panchayat

R.Thulasi Vs State of Kerala

Yakoob N.K. Vs the Land Revenue Commissioner

P.a.Kabeer Vs the Chairman

M.S. Viswanathan Vs the District Collector