Disposed

Rathnamma Ravi, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Aug 2024WP(C)/9127/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a direction to the gram panchayat to prosecute respondents for constructing a building without a development permit and altering land causing flooding. The panchayat's affidavit confirmed no development permit was obtained; a settlement of Rs. 2,60,000 remained unimplemented. The court directed the panchayat to take appropriate action under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules wi

What did the court decide?

Second respondent panchayat directed to take appropriate action against respondents 3 and 4 under Rule 90(4), 96(2), 107(3) of Kerala Panchayat Building Rules 2019 within a month.

Rathnamma Ravi, Vs State of Kerala — 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

¶4

WP(C) NO. 9127 OF 2023

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN WP(C) NO.13547 OF 2021 OF HIGH
COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS:

¶6

RATHNAMMA RAVI,
AGED 60 YEARS
1
METTUMPURATH HOUSE,ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE, NELLIKUZHI
P.O.,KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
RENJITH M. R.,
AGED 36 YEARS

¶7

S/O RAVI, METTUMPURATH HOUSE ,ERAMALLOOR
VILLAGE,NELLIKUZHI P.O,KOTHAMANGALAM TALUK,ERNAKULAM
2
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER RATHNAMMA RAVI,
W/O RAVI,AGED 58 YEARS,METTUMPURATH HOUSE, ERAMALLOOR
VILLAGE,NELLIKUZHI P.O,KOTHAMANGALAM
TALUK,ERNAKULAM,PIN-686691(1ST PETITIONER)
BY ADVS.
ALEXANDER JOSEPH
AKHILASREE BHASKARAN
ANTONY NIKHIL REMELO

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,DEPARTMENT
1
OF LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
THE SECRETARY,
2NELLIKUZHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT , NELLIKUZHI P.O,
KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
C.M ALI @ ALIKUNJU,
S/O MAMMOONJU,AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,CHATHANATTU
3
HOUSE,ERAMALLOOR KARA,ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE,NELLIKUZHI
P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM,ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691
JALEEL K. T.,
S/O KAREEM,AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,NELLIMATTATHIL
4
HOUSE,ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE,NELLIKUZHI PO,KOTHAMANGALAM,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686691

¶10

W.P(C) No. 9127 of 2024 2

¶11

BY ADVS. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR K.S.ARUN KUMAR

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

SMT.PREETHA K.K., SR.GP

¶14

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

¶15

W.P(C) No. 9127 of 2024 3

¶16

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.

¶17

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

¶18

W.P(C) No. 9127 of 2023

¶19

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

¶20

Dated this the 1^st day of August, 2024

¶21

J U D G M E N T

¶22

The petitioner seeks a direction to the 2nd respondent to initiate prosecution proceedings against respondents 3 and 4 alleging construction of a building without obtaining a development permit.

¶23

A statement has been filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent in response to the order passed by this Court on 27.06.2024, that directed the 2nd respondent to file an affidavit whether the construction carried out by respondents 3 and 4, was after getting a permit and also whether the construction completed is in tune with the permit is so granted and in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Act and the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules. An affidavit has been filed which reads as

¶24

W.P(C) No. 9127 of 2024 4

¶25

follows:

¶26

“The entire case of the petitioner is aroused from illegal development activities of the respondents No.3 and 4. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had made alterations to the lie of their landed property and resorted in removing of ordinary earth and filled the low-lying areas, and the same caused flooding of water to the house of the petitioner and thereby the petitioner had sustained damages to the property. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had not applied and granted with any development permit.“

¶27

The learned counsel for the panchayat submits that

¶28

the matter has been settled as per Ext.P6 and the respondents 3 and 4 agreed to pay Rs. 2,60,000/- noticed in the proceedings dated 13.05.2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they have not complied with the same so far. Though notice was served on respondents 3 and 4, there is no appearance.

¶29

Under such circumstances, there is no other alternative except directing the second respondent to take appropriate action against respondents 3 and 4 in the light of the statement in their counter affidavit. The prayer of

¶30

W.P(C) No. 9127 of 2024 5

¶31

the petitioners to take prosecution against respondents 3 and 4 under the provisions of Rule 90(4), 96(2), 107(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules 2019. The decision on the above shall be taken in accordance with law within a month from today.

¶32

This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

mus

¶37

W.P(C) No. 9127 of 2024 6

¶38

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9127/2023

¶39

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶40

	`TRUE COPY OF THE J`	`UDG`	`MENT DATED 29/01/2021 IN`
`ExhibitP1`	`WP© NO. 18240/2020`	`OF`	`THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT`
	`OF KERALA.`
	`TRUE COPY OF`	`THE`	`ORDER NO. RBI /`
`Exhibit P2` `Exhibit P3`	`506/2020/LSGD DAT` `RESPONDENT TO 2ND` `TRUE COPY OF THE A` `OF THE PETITIONERS`	`ED` `RESP` `PPL` `TO`	`23/02/2021 OF THE 1ST` `ONDENT.` `ICATION DATED 15/06/2021` `THE RESPONDENTS.`
`Exhibit P4`	`TRUE COPY OF THE J` `WP(C) 13547/2021 O`	`UDG` `F TH`	`MENT DATED 11.02.2022 IN` `IS HON'BLE COURT`
`Exhibit P5` `Exhibit P6`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE 1ST RESPONDENT` `TRUE COPY OF MEMO` `13/05/2022 SIGNED`	`LET` `TO` `RAN` `BY T`	`TER DATED 09.03.2022 OF` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT` `DUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED` `HE PARTIES`
`Exhibit P7`	`TRUE COPY OF LAWY` `SENT BY THE PETITI`	`ER` `ONER`	`NOTICE DATED 12.07.2022` `TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`
`Exhibit P8` `RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`	`TRUE COPY OF THE` `THE 1ST RESPONDENT`	`LET` `TO`	`TER DATED 22.08.2022 OF` `THE 2ND RESPONDENT`
	`A TRUE COPY OF THE`	`LE`	`TTER NO R B 1-506-2020-`
`Exhibit R1( A)`	`LSG DATED 11-10-22` `LOCAL SELF GOVERNM` `OF KERALA`	`OF` `ENT`	`THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY` `DEPARTMENT , GOVERNMENT`

Rathnamma Ravi, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rathnamma Ravi, v. State of Kerala

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

K. M. Thomas, Vs the Secretary

Sreekumar a. K., Vs State of Kerala

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