Partly allowed

Fr Stephen Lopus, v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC22 Jul 2024WP(C)/13230/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order directing demolition of an unauthorised compound wall allegedly abutting a public road. The Court quashed the order, directing the Panchayat to seek assistance from the Taluk Surveyor to verify property boundaries and ownership before initiating further proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is ordered quashing Ext. P7 and directing the Panchayat to approach the Taluk Surveyor to measure the property and determine if the boundary is a public place.

Fr Stephen Lopus, Vs the State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶4

MONDAY, THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY 2024 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1946

¶5

WP(C) NO. 13230 OF 2023

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

FR STEPHEN LOPUS, AGED 70 YEARS S/O DAVID LOPUS, ALUMKADAVIL HOUSE, KANNANALLUR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691576 BY ADVS. T.R.RAJAN R.JOHNSON

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN - 695001

¶10

2 ADICHANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ADICHANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, ADICHANALLOOR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KOLLAM, PIN - 691573

¶11

3 THE SECRETARY, ADICHANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ADICHANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, ADICHANALLOOR, KOLLAM, PIN - 691573

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SMT.DEVI SHRI R., GP, SRI.BIJITH S.KHAN, SC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.07.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 13230 OF 2023

¶16

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

The petitioner challenges Ext.P7 order passed by the Panchayat finding the construction of a compound wall by the petitioner to be unauthorised and directing demolition. Ext.P7 also states that the construction was abutting a public road and no construction could have been made without obtaining a permit. Earlier the petitioner had challenged a notice dated 31.01.2021 issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat directing him to stop the construction. W.P. (C.) No. 5853/2023 was filed by the petitioner and by judgment dated 23.02.2023, the Secretary of the Panchayat was directed to consider the objections preferred by the petitioner to the notice dated 31.01.2021 and to pass orders on the same, after conducting the site inspections.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the judgment is dated 23.02.2023, he was served with Ext.P6 notice by the Panchayat after the writ petition was disposed of and the notice bears the date, 17.01.2023. Thereafter on 29.03.2023, Ext.P7, the impugned order was passed.

¶20

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Secretary contending that the petitioner had constructed a compound wall without getting permission and therefore, the said action is violative of Rule 69 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, as the southern part of the petitioner's property abutted a public place as per revenue records. The petitioner disputes

¶21

WP(C) NO. 13230 OF 2023

¶22

¶23

the alleged measurements taken by the Panchayat and also disputes the contention of the Panchayat that the southern boundary of his property is abutting a public place. The petitioner has also a contention that even going by the averments in the counter affidavit there is no public road abutting the petitioner's property where the compound wall is constructed.

¶24

In view of the rival contentions, there will be a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to seek the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor concerned and cause a measurement/identification/demarcation of the petitioner's property and also to see whether the southern boundary of the petitioner's property is a public place or not .

¶25

Accordingly, the writ petition is ordered quashing Ext. P7 and directing the Panchayat to approach the Taluk Surveyor concerned with a request to measure out the property as directed above, with notice to the petitioner and the Panchayat. Based on the report so obtained from the Taluk Surveyor, the Panchayat can take further proceedings, if any, in accordance with law with notice to the petitioner.

¶26

The writ petition is allowed as above.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE

¶29

DCS

¶30

WP(C) NO. 13230 OF 2023

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13230/2023

¶33

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1	TRUE 30/1 THAZ	COPY /2020 HUTHAL	OF THE ISSUED A VILLAGE	LAND TAX RECEIPT DATED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
Exhibit P2	TRUE ISSU OFFI	COPY ED BY CE, KO	OF THE THE TAHS LLAM	NOTICE DATED 7/12/2022 ILDAR(LAND RECORDS), TALUK
Exhibit P3	TRUE 31/1	COPY /2021	OF THE ISSUED BY	NOTICE NO A3-1/23 DATED THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4	TRUE SUBM RESP	COPY ITTED ONDENT	OF THE BY THE	OBJECTIONS DATED 7/2/2023 PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
Exhibit P5	TRUE THIS	COPY HONBL	OF THE J E COURT I	UDGMENT DATED 23/2/2023 OF N WP C NO 5853 OF 2023
Exhibit P6	TRUE 17/1 PETI	COPY /2023 TIONER	OF THE ISSUED BY	NOTICE NO A3-1/23 DATED THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE
Exhibit P7	TRUE 29/3	COPY /2023	OF THE O ISSUED BY	RDER NO A4/2263/2023 DATED THE 3RD RESPONDENT
Exhibit P8	TRUE PREP VILL	COPY ARED B AGE	OF THE Y THE VI	SKETCH OF THE PROPERTY LLAGE OFFICER, THAZHUTHALA

Fr Stephen Lopus, v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Fr Stephen Lopus, v. the State of Kerala

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

Muneer Thayyil Vs Sivaja Das

U.C.Pathumma Vs Mr.Sathyanath, the Div.Forest Officer

Sindhu B.S. Vs Aravindan Muthuvotte

Leela S., Vs State of Kerala

Godsee Moncy, Vs District Collector

Shinoy Manakkattupadi Sathyan, Vs the Secretary