Kerala High Court
Pushpavally vs State Of Kerala on 6 July, 2021
W. A. No. 1 of 2013 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 15TH ASHADHA, 1943
WA NO. 1 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 14783/2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT/S:
1 PUSHPAVALLEY, AGED 49 YEARS
W/O.LATE CHANDRAN, POYIL HOUSE CHULLIYODE P.O,
5TH MILE, NENMENI VILLAGE, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK
2 JINTHINDAS,
S/O.LATE CHANDRAN POYIL HOUSE CHULLIYODE P.O 5TH MILE
NENMENI VILLAGE SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK
3 VIDHYA CHANDRAN,
D/O.LATE CHANDRAN POYIL HOUSE CHULLIYODE P.O 5TH MILE
NENMENI VILLAGE SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK
BY ADVS.
SRI.N.J.MATHEWS
SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001
2 SULTHAN BATHERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, SULTHAN BATHERY P.O 673
592 WAYANAD DISTRICT
3 PRESIDENT
SULTHAN BATHERY GRAMA PANCHAYATH
SULTHAN BATHERY P.O 673592 WAYANAD DISTRICT
SRI. TEK CHAND, SENIOR GP FOR R1
SRI. K. M. SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R2 AND R3
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
06.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W. A. No. 1 of 2013 -2-
JUDGMENT
S. Manikumar, C. J.
Judgment impugned in this writ appeal in W. P. (C) No. 14783
of 2007 dated 17.08.2012 is extracted:-
"Petitioners submit that their husbands were allotted
rooms in the Sulthan Bathery bus stand, constructed by the
respondent Panchayat. While the petitioners contend that the
arrangement was a lease, Panchayat contends that it was only a
licence. Be that as it may, their husbands expired during the
currency of the lease /licence and thereafter the Panchayat issued
notice calling upon them to vacate from the premises. It is
thereupon that this writ petitions were filed contending that being
the successors of the lessees, petitioners are entitled to continue
occupation of the rooms in question.
2. I heard the counsel for the petitioners and also the
counsel appearing for the Panchayat. Irrespective of whether it is
a lease or licence, fact remains that the mutually agreed term of
arrangement between the Panchayat and the deceased husbands
of the petitioners has expired. Once the agreed term has expired,
even if the Original allottee is still the occupant, the Panchayat is
entitled to call upon him to vacate from the premises. This
precisely is what is done by the Panchayat in this case.
3. Therefore, having regard to the lapse of time, I do not
think that there is any necessity for this court to examine the
nature of the relationship between the parties.
4. In such circumstances, I dispose of these writ petitions
directing that it will be open to the Panchayat to auction the right
in respect of the respective rooms and in the auction liberty will
also be given to the petitioners to participate. It is directed that
until auction is conducted and the matter is settled as above, the
petitioners will be permitted to continue to occupy the premises
on conditions that are presently applicable.
Writ Petitions are disposed of as above."
2. Though assailing the correctness of the same, appellant has
raised grounds, going through the material on record, we find no error
in the judgment. Period of the lease or licence, as the case may be,
expired in 2007.
Writ court has considered that mutually agreed term of
arrangement between the Panchayat and the deceased husbands of the
writ petitioner's had already expired, and that Panchayat is entitled to
auction, to augment revenue.
Writ petition is dismissed
Sd/-
S.MANIKUMAR
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
SHAJI P.CHALY
JUDGE
Eb
///TRUE COPY///
P. A. TO JUDGE
