RETNA BAI N v. THE SECRETARY
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Hence this writ petition is dismissed, withoutprejudice to rights of the petitioner to challenge Ext
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Hence this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P8before appropriate appellate authority.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/17TH PHALGUNA 1933WP(C).No. 5584 of 2012 (W) --------------------------PETITIONER(S):----------------------- RETNA BAI N., VELIYIL MADOM, THIRUMALA BHAGAM. P.O., THURAVOOR- 688 540, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM, SRI.BEJOY CHERIYAN.RESPONDENT(S):-------------------------1. THE SECRETARY, AROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE), AROOR - 688 534, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
KRISHNA PILLAI. K., MADASSERRIL HOUSE, AROOR - 688 534, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
THE DISTRICT TOWN PLANNER, DEPARTMENT OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001. R3 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER MR.MUHAMMED SHAFI M. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:rs. WP(C).No. 5584 of 2012 (W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 14/11/2011 SUBMITTEDBEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF THE AD-INTERIM INJUNCTION ORDER DATED 21/11/2011 IN I.A NO. 3472 OF 2011 IN O.S 523/2011EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION REPORT FILED IN I.A 3471/2011 IN O.S 523/2011 DATED 28/11/2011.EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTO TAKEN ON 22/11/2011.EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15/01/2012 FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 16/01/2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF THE C0UNTER OBJECTION DATED 16/01/2012FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONOURABLEMUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA.EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF THE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 26/12/2011FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF COURT ON 16/01/2012.EXHIBIT-P9-TRUE COPY OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 23/01/2012 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF COURT.EXHIBIT-P10-TRUE COPY OF THE DISMISSAL ORDERS DATED 06/02/2012 OF THE HONOURABLE MUNSIFF COURT, CHERTHALA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, J........................................W.P.C.NO.5584/2012.......................................Dated this the 7th day of March, 2012.JUDGMENTChallenge is against Ext.P8 'No Objection Certificate'issued by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent. Through Ext.P8, it was certified that the Panchayath has no objection in the 2nd respondent constructing double storied residential building having a plinth area of 153.45Sq.m. in Survey No.11/15-16 of Aroor village. 2. According to the petitioner, Ext.P8 was issued without taking note of the objection already raised by him. It is further complained that Ext.P8 was issued at a time when an interim injunction order issued by the MunsifCourt, Cherthala was in force, through which 2ndrespondent was restrained from making any construction encroaching into property belonging to the petitioner. However it is conceded that the interim injunction W.P.C.NO.5584/20122application was dismissed subsequently as per Ext.P10,reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge Ext.P8.3.
While considering the challenges raised against Ext.P8, I take note of the fact that the petitioner has got aneffective remedy of statutory appeal as provided under Section 276 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994. HenceI am of the view that, this writ petition filed bye-passingsuch effective and alternative remedy, cannot be entertained.
Operative part
Hence this writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to challenge Ext.P8before appropriate appellate authority.
The petitioner had also raised a contention that the2nd respondent had constructed the building in a manner violating provisions of the Building Rules and provisions of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994. If the petitioner has got any such grievance, it is left open to her to approach the Grama Panchayath or its Secretary, seeking action for W.P.C.NO.5584/20123demolishing of unauthorised construction if any made in violation of the relevant laws. Sd/-C.K.ABDUL REHIM JUDGETRUE COPYPA TO JUDGERKM
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence this writ petition is dismissed, withoutprejudice to rights of the petitioner to challenge Ext
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Kerala Panchayath Raj Act, 1994 — s. 276.
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.