MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MULANTHURUTHYU v. KUNHIKRISHNAN

MULANTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MULANTHURUTHYU, PIN-682 314, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. P.J.JOHN, PALAKKATT HOUSE, PERUMPILLY, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 314. K.V.JOSEPH, KUZHUVELIL HOUSE, PERUMPILLY, MULANTHURUTHY, ERNAKULAM-682 314. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, MULANTHURUTHY VILLAGE, MULANTHURUTHY, PIN-682 314. THE TAHSILDAR KANAYANNOOR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682 011. THE TALUK SURVEYOR KANAYANNOOR TALUK OFFICE, ERNAKULAM-682 011. BY ADVS. SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.S.SREEKUMAR SR. SRI.THOMAS P.KURUVILLA OTHER PRESENT: SRI.B.S.SYAMANTAK, GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P(C).1834/2015 2 P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.1834 of 2015 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2024 JUDGMENT The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction calling for the records leading to the issue of Ext.P15 and quash the same. b. Issue a writ of mandamus or other writ or order directing the first respondent to conduct measurement of the petitioners' property referable to Ext.P7 & P8 with the help of respondents 5 & 6 and till such time all coercieve action pursuant Ext.P15 may be ordered to be kept in abeyance. c. Direct the first respondent to issue copy of the order/proceeding passed pursuant to the direction contained in Ext.P10 Judgment to the petitioner enabling to resort remedies as per law. d. Direct the respondents 5 & 6 to measure out the property of the petitioners as per Ext.P7 and P8 and report the matter to the first respondent and to furnish the copy to the petitioners. W.P(C).1834/2015 3 e. Issue such other reliefs which may be deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the above writ petition. [SIC]

2. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration on

16.01.2015, this Court passed the following order: ‘This case has a chequered career. The first petitioner, who is said to be 72 years old, earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 2191 of 2011 questioning the action of the first respondent Grama Panchayath proposing to demolish her compound wall to widen what is said to be a private road. When the said writ petition was dismissed, after filing a statutory appeal before the first respondent, the petitioner, however, filed an intra- court appeal in W.A. No. 550 of 2011, which also came to be dismissed in course of time by a learned Division Bench of this Court, thereby leaving the option open for the petitioner to exhaust the appellate remedy.

2. Presently, the grievance of the first petitioner is that without disposing of the statutory appeal, the Grama Panchayath issued Ext.P11 dated 10.11.2014 directing the first petitioner to demolish the compound wall and report compliance by

11.12.2014, as if the petitioner had consented to do so. W.P(C).1834/2015 4

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the first petitioner has never consented to demolish the compound wall, which, according to him, is well within her own private property. He has further contended that now the first respondent issued Ext.P15 inviting quotations for the demolition of the compound wall constructed allegedly encroaching upon the purampoke road in re-survey No. 226/6.

4. Prima facie, it does not seem to be a sound practice to issue Ext.P15 while the statutory appeal is pending. Assuming for a moment, notwithstanding the stout denial by the petitioner that she had ever consented, there were to be any consent on the part of the petitioner to either shift or demolish the compound wall, firstly the statutory appeal ought to have been disposed of duly recording the said consent, if any, and later the first respondent could have taken all consequential steps, such as issuing either Ext. P11 or P15.

5. Under these facts and circumstances, I feel there is balance of convenience in favour of the petitioner and unless an interim direction is given, the petitioner shall be put to irreparable loss. Accordingly, there shall be an interim suspension of all further proceedings consequent to Exts.P11 and P15. W.P(C).1834/2015 5

6. Post the matter in 10 days. The learned counsel for the petitioners has sought the leave of this Court to withdraw the writ petition insofar as the second petitioner is concerned with liberty to file a fresh writ petition. Leave is granted accordingly.’

3. Subsequently, the appeal filed by the petitioners is dismissed as evident by Ext.P18. The main grievance of the petitioners is that, Ext.P18 is an order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. A perusal of Ext.P18 would not show that, it is an order passed after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

4. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, this Writ Petition need not be retained here and Ext.P18 can be set aside and there can be a direction to reconsider the matter, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions: a) Ext.P18 is set aside. W.P(C).1834/2015 6 b) The 1st respondent will reconsider the appeal, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- Sbna/ P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE W.P(C).1834/2015 7 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1834 /20 15 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 Exhibit P2 Exhibit P3 Exhibit P4 Exhibit P5 Exhibit P6 Exhibit P7 Exhibit P8 Exhibit P9 Exhibit P10 Exhibit P11 Exhibit P12 Exhibit P13 Exhibit P14 Exhibit 15 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.03.2010 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 20.04.2010 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.1461/2010 BEFORE THE THIRD RESPONDENT DATED 19.07.2010 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 28.8.2010 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY TEH FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 8.10.2010 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 6.11.2010 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESURVEY SKETCH SHOWING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS AND TEH FOURTH RESPONDENT TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESURVEY SKETCH SHOWING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONERS AND THE FIFTH RESPONDENT TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.2191/2011 DATED 29.03.2011 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF HTE JUDGMENT IN WA 550/2011 DATED 31.10.2014 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 10.12.2014 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER FILED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 18.12.2014 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY TEH FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 23.12.2014 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY TEH SECOND PETITIONER DATED 27.12.2014 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 09.01.2015 W.P(C).1834/2015 Exhibit P16 EXHIBIT P17 EXHIBIT P18 8 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF HTE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.01.2015 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21.01.2015 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RESOLUTION/DECISION NO.16 DATED 29.01.2014 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER