Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANTY BOSE, W/O. MOHAN BOSE versus KUMARAKAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SANTY BOSE, W/O. MOHAN BOSE v. KUMARAKAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT - WP(C) No. 17578 of 2006(P) [2007] RD-KL 1845 (23 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 17578 of 2006(P)

1. SANTY BOSE, W/O. MOHAN BOSE,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KUMARAKAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
... Respondent

2. THE SECRETARY, KUMARAKOM GRAMA

3. BAIJU, MALIKKAYALIL,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.J.THOMAS

For Respondent :SRI.C.A.CHACKO

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

Dated :23/01/2007

O R D E R

PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.

W.P.(C)NO. 17578 of 2006 Dated this 23rd day of January, 2007

JUDGMENT

Even though several grounds have been raised by the writ petitioner, who owns properties near to the objectionable building which has been constructed by the 3rd respondent, the ground that Ext.P7 order was passed by the Panchayat Committee without jurisdiction appeals to me. The order which was impugned before the Panchayat Committee was an order directing demolition of the building on the ground that it has been constructed in violation of Section 220 (b) of the Panchayat Raj Act. Of course, Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned Standing Counsel for the Panchayat would submit that the order can be construed as one an order under Section 235 of the Act refusing to number the building in which case an appeal can lie under Section 276 to the Committee. The above argument of the learned Standing Counsel according to me is not sustainable.

2. I uphold the contention that Ext.P7 order was issued by the Committee on an appeal which was not maintainable. Ext.P7 is quashed on that reason. It is seen that the 3rd WPC No.17578/2006 2 respondent has put up the objectionable construction on a plot which had extent of only 2.175 cents of land which is said to be the only immovable asset belonging to the 3rd respondent, I relegate the 3rd respondent to his remedy by way of an appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution against the demolition order which was impugned by him before the Committee of the Panchayat. If the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institution receives an appeal within three weeks of the petitioner or the 3rd respondent receiving a copy of this judgment, the Tribunal will entertain that appeal as one filed on time and dispose of the same in accordance with law at the Tribunal's earliest and at any rate within four months of receiving the appeal on file. The status quo obtaining as on today will be maintained for a period of two months from today. It is needless to mention that the writ petitioner also shall be made as a respondent in the appeal to be filed by the 3rd respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE Judge dpk WPC No.17578/2006 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.