Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 154
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
SMITHA T.S – Appellant
Versus
PUTHUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT – Respondent
WP(C) 3434/2022
The court upheld the priority of proceedings under the SURFAESI Act over local grievances regarding unauthorized constructions, emphasizing lawful eviction processes.
Headnote:
Permit - Supermarket Operation - SURFAESI Act - Section 14 - The court recognized the legality of the Bank's actions under the SURFAESI Act, indicating the eviction of the society from the property and potential resolution of unauthorized construction through local government actions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claims that the society is operating a supermarket without a valid permit and has made illegal constructions on the leased premises. The petitioner sought action against the society and aimed to evict them from the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court indicated that the local Panchayath has already issued orders against unauthorized construction. It noted that the bank has initiated proceedings under the SURFAESI Act, taking symbolic possession of the property, which may resolve the ongoing issues.
Issues: The key issue revolves around the validity of the society's operation without a permit and the legality of the constructions made by it on the petitioner's leased property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that ongoing proceedings under the SURFAESI Act take precedence, suggesting that the local Panchayath will act on illegal constructions depending on the outcomes of those proceedings.
Final Decision: Writ petitions disposed of as proceedings under the SURFAESI Act are ongoing.
All these writ petitions are connected and therefore, I am disposing of these writ petitions by a common order.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the contesting respondent namely Ollurkara Block Kerala State Service Pensioners Union Co-operative Welfare Society is conducting a Supermarket without valid permit and there is illegal construction made by the society. The petitioner is the owner of the premises, which was given on lease to the Society. The petitioner approached the Joint Registrar to take action against the Society and also approached the Electricity Board to disconnect the supply to the Society’s premises.
3. A reading of the prayers in these writ petitions itself would show that, in effect the attempt of the petitioner is to evict the Society from his building.
Already orders are passed by the Grama Panchayath against unauthorized construction.
In such circumstances, the Panchayath will do the needful, in accordance with law. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the Society submitted that the proceedings under Section 14 of the SURFAESI Act is already initiated by the Bank and a symbolic possession of the property is taken by the Bank. If that be the case, the prayers in these writ petitions need not be considered by this Court, at this stage. If the proceedings under the SURFAESI Act is lifted, the Panchayath will take necessary steps to implement the orders passed to remove the illegal construction, if the same became final. All the contentions of the petitioner and the respondents in these writ petitions are left open.
With the above observation, these writ petitions are disposed of.
