Disposed

K. M. Thomas, v. the Secretary

Kerala HC1 Aug 2024WP(C)/11065/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners complained of unauthorised construction by co-holders of jointly held property. The Panchayat had issued a preliminary demolition order under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act but took no further steps. The court directed it to act on that order with notice to all parties within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to 1st respondent Panchayat to take further action on Ext.P5 preliminary order with notice to petitioners and respondents 3 and 4, and pass orders in accordance with law within one month.

K. M. Thomas, Vs the Secretary — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶3

THURSDAY, THE 1STDAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 11065 OF 2022

¶4

PETITIONERS:

¶5

K. M. THOMAS,
AGED 83 YEARS
1
PUTHENPURACKKAL HOUSE, LANE NO. 4, CHILAVANOOR ROAD,
KADAVANTHRA, KOCHI, PIN - 682020
MADHU PHILIP,
AGED 69 YEARS
2
KIZHAKKEKALAYIL HOUSE, NELLIKALA P.O, KOZHENCHERY
TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689643
BY ADVS.
M.P.RAMNATH
BEPIN PAUL
S.SANDHYA
SHALU VARGHESE
POOJA KRISHNA K.B.
UMA R.KAMATH
K.J.SEBASTIAN
P.RAJESH (KOTTAKKAL)
M.VARGHESE VARGHESE
ANTONY THARIAN

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

THE SECRETARY,

¶8

1 MULAVUKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682504 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

¶9

2 MULAVUKAD POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682504 PRABHAMANI @ JOLLY,

¶10

3 SASTHAMPADIKKAL, MULAVUKAD P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682504 ARUN,

¶11

4 SASTHAMPADIKKAL, MULAVUKAD P.O, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682504 BY ADVS. T.K.AJITHKUMAR (VALATH), SC, MULAVUKAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT LAL K.JOSEPH P.MURALEEDHARAN T.A.LUXY SURESH SUKUMAR ANZIL SALIM

¶12

W.P(C) No. 11065 of 2022 2

¶13

SANJAY SELLEN

¶14

OTHER PRESENT:

¶15

SMT.PREETHA K.K., SR.GP

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
01.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.P(C) No. 11065 of 2022 3

¶18

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

¶19

==========================

¶20

W.P(C) No. 11065 of 2022

¶21

==========================

¶22

Dated this the 1^st day of August, 2024

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

The petitioners complain of the unauthorised construction by respondents 3 and 4 in the property jointly held by them.

¶25

A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1^st respondent Panchayat stating that based on the complaint, it was found that the 3^rd respondent was making a construction without obtaining any building permit and they issued Ext.P5 preliminary order under Section 235 W(1) Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 directing the 3^rd respondent to stop the construction and also to demolish the illegal construction. It is submitted that immediately after the issuance of Ext.P5 order, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 complaint and approached this Court.

¶26

W.P(C) No. 11065 of 2022 4

¶27

The prayer in the writ petition is to take action by enforcing Exts.P5 and P6 orders. It is seen that after the issuance of the provisional order, no further steps were taken on account of the pendency of the writ petition.

¶28

Given the above, there will be direction to the 1^st respondent to take further action on the preliminary order passed, with notice to the writ petitioners and also respondents 3 and 4 and pass orders, in accordance with law, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶29

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

mus

¶34

W.P(C) No. 11065 of 2022 5

¶35

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11065/2022

¶36

`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`	`EXHIBIT P1- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT THUS`
`EXHIBIT1`	`FILED BY ONE OF THE CO-OWNER BEFORE THE 1ST`
	`RESPONDENT DATED 05-03-2022.` `EXHIBIT P2- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT`
`EXHIBIT2`	`FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATE 05-03-` `2022.` `EXHIBIT P3- A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE`
`EXHIBIT3`	`COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED` `05-03-2022.` `EXHIBIT P4- A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT GIVEN`
`EXHIBIT4`	`BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE`
	`COMPLAINT, DATED 05-03-2022.` `EXHIBIT P5- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED`
`EXHIBIT5`	`10-03-2022 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT`
	`AGAINST THE 3RD RESPONDENT.`
	`EXHIBIT P6- A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF`
	`INJUNCTION GRANTED BY THE SUB-COURT IN`
`EXHIBIT6`	`I.A.NO.2/2022 IN O.S.NO.61/2022 DATED 14-03-`
	`2022.`
	`EXHIBIT P7- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT`
`EXHIBIT7`	`DATED 17-03-2022 SUBMITTED TO THE 1ST`
	`RESPONDENT REQUESTING ENFORCEMENT OF THE` `ORDER DATED 17-03-2022.`
	`EXHIBIT P8- A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT`
	`SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE`
`EXHIBIT8`	`IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COURT ORDER AND`
	`ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST` `RESPONDENT DATED 17-03-2022.` `EXHIBIT P9- A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF THE`
`EXHIBIT9`	`COMPLAINT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED` `18-03-2022.` `EXHIBIT P10- A TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF`
`EXHIBIT10` `RESPONDENT ANNEXURES`	`COMPLAINT ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED` `27-03-2022.` `THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 21/03/2022`
`ANNEXURE R3(A)`	`SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE EXT-P5` `ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT`

K. M. Thomas, v. the Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. M. Thomas, v. the Secretary

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

Kizhakkethil Itheerumma Vs the Director

Nalini M Vs C.Subramanian

Velayudhan, Vs Edathala Gramapanchayath

Rathnamma Ravi, Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar a. K., Vs State of Kerala

Muhammed Asharaf K.K., Vs the Revenue Divisional Officer