G.SOMAN PILLAI v. THE MAVELIKARA THAMARAKULAM GRAMA
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 17 Jan 2008
- Bench
- PIUS C KURIAKOSE
Provisions considered
Judgment
BY ADV. SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND RESPONDENTS: -------------
THE MAVELIKARA THAMARAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SPECIAL GRADE, THAMARAKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
SECRETARY, THE MAVELIKARA THAMARAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, SPECIAL GRADE, THAMARAKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Pius C. Kuriakose, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 2153 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 17th day of January,2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order issued by the 1st respondent panchayat. Under Ext.P1 the petitioner is restrained from constructing a residential building on his property on the reason that the construction is in violation of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Building Rules. The petitioner submits that the construction started long ago and could not be completed the construction due to the illness of the 1st petitioner and the Rules will not apply, since the construction had proceeded beyond the ground level. He also contends that section 220(b) do not have any application, since the road upon which the construction is being made has not been notified by the panchayat. He has a further case that actually the constructions are beyond a distance of 3 metres from the margin of the road.
2. It appears that Ex.P1 is issued without hearing the petitioner. In the circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition itself directing the 2nd respondent to treat Ext.P1 as a show cause notice to which the WPC 2153/08 2 petitioner and other residents of the locality have submitted Exts.P3 to P5 objections. The 2nd respondent will hear the petitioners on the issue covered by Exts.P1, P3 to P5 and pass fresh orders as early as possible, at any rate within two weeks of receiving a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition. Once orders are passed, the same will be communicated to the petitioners. It is made clear that the panchayat will verify whether any notification has been published regarding the road upon which the constructions are being made for the purpose of 220(b) in the Gazette. If no notification is published in that manner, the panchayat will proceed as if section 220(b) does not apply. Pius C. Kuriakose, Judge. mn. WPC 2153/08 3
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 17 Jan 2008. The bench was PIUS C KURIAKOSE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.