Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KAMALA, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.LATE KARUPPAN versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


KAMALA, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.LATE KARUPPAN v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE - WP(C) No. 18783 of 2007(J) [2007] RD-KL 15873 (17 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 18783 of 2007(J)

1. KAMALA, AGED 62 YEARS, W/O.LATE KARUPPAN
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,

3. RANNI PERUNAD GRAMMA PANCHAYAT

4. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, OFFICE

For Petitioner :SRI.V.SETHUNATH

For Respondent :SRI.S.SANTOSH KUMAR (PERUNAD)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH

Dated :17/08/2007

O R D E R

K.M.JOSEPH, J.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No. 18783 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dated this the 17th day of August, 2007



JUDGMENT

Petitioner challenges Ext.P7. Petitioner seeks a direction to implement Ext.P3 order. Case of the petitioner is that by Ext.P7 dated 12/06/2007 the Panchayat directed demolition of the building constructed in violation of Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. According to the petitioner, there was a civil suit filed by the Panchayat itself and it culminated in Ext.P5 judgment. In Ext.P5 it is found that there is no violation of Section 220(b) by the petitioner. According to the petitioner there is no basis for proceeding against him under Section 220 (b).

2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Panchayat also. By Ext.P3, the Deputy Director found that there is no violation of Section 220(b) and directed the respondent-Panchayat to number the building and also to issue necessary certificates to the petitioner for obtaining WPC No.18783/07 2 Ration Card and Electricity. I feel that there cannot be any legal basis for sustaining Ext.P7 having regard to the finding in the civil suit. Accordingly, Ext.P7 is quashed. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Panchayat that the building is already numbered , but the ownership certificate has not been granted so far. There will be a direction to the third respondent to issue the ownership certificate of the building in question to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)

sv. WPC No.18783/07 3


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.