IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S. Manikumar, Shaji P. Chaly, JJ.
K.A. Narayanan S/o Achuthankurup - Appellant
Versus
Alagappanagar Grama Panchayat & Ors. - Respondents
W.A. No.309 of 2020
Decided On : 04-08-2020
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994- Section 220(b);; The Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011- Rule 25 , Rule 135 - Power of the Secretary to regularise certain constructions- The Secretary of the Grama Panchayat was duty bound to take a decision in the application submitted by the appellant- If no interim orders preventing the Secretary from carrying out the statutory duties conferred on him under the Rules, 2011.
Statement of facts:
Writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34707 of 2019 challenging the judgment dated 15.01.2020 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition holding that since a suit is pending before the Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda by and between the appellant and the third respondent i.e., one K.P. Jayasankar, the appellant has not made out any case of arbitrariness or illegality justifying interference of this Court in Ext.P3 order issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat dated 30.11.2019 declining building number to the appellant. The validity of the said judgement is under challenge in this appeal.
Finding of the court:
Direct the second respondent i.e., the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat, Alagappanagar Grama Panchayat, Thrissur District to reconsider the application submitted by the appellant in terms of the Act, 1994 and the Rules, 2011 at the earliest and at any rate, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after securing participation of the appellant.
Result: Writ appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34707 of 2019 challenging the judgment dated 15.01.2020 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition holding that since a suit is pending before the Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda by and between the appellant and the third respondent i.e., one K.P. Jayasankar, the appellant has not made out any case of arbitrariness or illegality justifying interference of this Court in Ext.P3 order issued by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat dated 30.11.2019 declining building number to the appellant. The validity of the said judgement is under challenge in this appeal.
2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:
“A5/7826/2019
Date: 30.11.2019
From,
Secretary,
Alagappanagar Grama Panchayat.
To,
Sri. Narayanan,
Kalarikkal House,
Amballoor, Alagappanagar P.O.
Sir,
Sub: Decision regarding the application to assign building number-regarding.
Ref: 1. Permit No. A5-BA(48318) 2018 dated 08.03.2018 issued from this office.
2. Your application No.A5/7826/2019 dated 20.11.2019 for obtaining building number.
3. I.A.No.5269/2019 filed by Sri. K.P. Jayasankar before the Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda.
Building permit first under reference has been sanctioned to you from this office for construction of residential building having an area of 188.4 sq. mtr. in 27.07 Ares property in Sy. No. 442/1-1, 449/07, 437/10-1 of Amballoor Village in Alagappanagar Grama Panchayat; and you submitted application second under reference for obtaining building number after completion of the construction of residential building having area of 229.51 sq. mtr. However, case third under reference has been filed stating that during the construction of the said building, the natural drainage in the property was altered and earth has been levelled in such a manner of flowing water to the property of Sri. K.P. Jayasankar, Kalarikkal House, Amballoor, and therefore a wall has to be constructed to prevent the flow of rain water to his property. Therefore, it is informed that further action pursuant to your application can be taken only based on the directions from the Court.”
It was aggrieved by the action of the Secretary, the writ petition was filed.
3. Admittedly, the suit filed by the third respondent as O.S. No. 228 of 2019 against the appellant, his wife, the Panchayat and the State of Kerala, is pending consideration before the Munsiff's Court, Irinjalakuda. The reliefs sought for in the suit produced as Annexure A in the writ appeal, read thus:
2. Prohibitory injunction against 1st and 2nd defendants either their men or agents from debasing 'B' schedule property and again against spilling dirty/mud/rain water to A & D schedule properties from B, C properties.
3. Directing the 3rd defendant to hold the process of issuing House number to the first defendant which the house newly built in 'B' scheduled property till disposal of this suit.
4. The cause of action for the suit is that the defen
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.