Muhammed Siyad K.A vs Kottayam Municipality
2021 Latest Caselaw 15329 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
         THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1943
                         WP(C) NO. 10188 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

             MUHAMMED SIYAD K.A.
             AGED 36 YEARS
             S/O. ABDUL KHADER, KARUKASERIL, KANJIRAM P.O.,
             THIRUVARPU, KOTTAYAM, KERALA, PIN-686020.

             BY ADVS.
             M.V.THAMBAN
             SRI.R.REJI
             SMT.THARA THAMBAN
             SRI.B.BIPIN
             SRI.ARUN BOSE



RESPONDENT/S:

     1       KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY,
             MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686001, REPRESENTED BY
             ITS SECRETARY.

     2       THE SECRETARY,
             KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-
             686001.

     3       THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
             KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, PIN-
             686001

             BY ADV SHRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY, SC, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 10188 OF 2021                       2



                                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2021

Alleging unauthorised construction, the petitioner

was issued with a notice and a provisional order for

demolition. At that stage the petitioner had approached this

Court in this Writ Petition. The petitioner had submitted

his objections to the notice and provisional order.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that pending the writ petition, a hearing has

been conducted by the 3rd respondent and that final orders

are awaited. The petitioner apprehends that in the meanwhile

coercive steps may be taken. The apprehension of the

petitioner is misconceived. There is no warrant for the

apprehension that before final orders are passed, any

coercive steps would be taken for enforcement of the

provisional order. The learned standing counsel for the

municipality also endorses the same.

The writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd

respondent to pass final orders in the proceedings, taking

due note of the contentions/objections of the petitioner,

expeditiously.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE sd

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 10188/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED DATED 19.9.2018.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 25.6.2019.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAX FOR BUILDING BEARING NO.590 DATED 4.5.2019.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAX FOR BUILDING BEARING NO.591 DATED 4.5.2019.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAX FOR BUILDING BEARING NO.592 DATED 4.5.2019.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY TAX FOR BUILDING BEARING NO.594.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.PW4/26789/19 DATED 22.9.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL ORDER BEARING NO.PW4/26789/19 DATED 22.9.2020 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 7.1.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY DATED 7.1.2021.

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE BEARING NO.PW4/26189/219 DATED 21.1.2021.