George Cherian vs Vengola Grama Panchayath
2021 Latest Caselaw 20951 Ker

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 20951 Ker
Judgement Date : 6 October, 2021

Kerala High Court

George Cherian vs Vengola Grama Panchayath on 6 October, 2021

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                             PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
  WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021/14TH ASWINA, 1943
                      WP(C) NO. 1821 OF 2020


PETITIONER:

         GEORGE CHERIAN, S/O.CHERIAN,
         THOMBRA HOSUE, VENGOLA VILLAGE,
         ALLAPRA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 556,
         ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

         BY ADV R.ANILKUMAR
RESPONDENTS:

    1    VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
         REP. BY SECRETARY, VENGOLA VILLAGE,
         ATTAPRA P.O., PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 556,
         ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

    2    SUPERVISOR, ICDS, VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
         ALLAPRA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PN-683 556

    3    ASSISTNAT ENGINEER, PWD,
         PERUMBAVOOR,
         ERNAKULAM DIS PIN-683 556.

    4    STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
         SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT,
         GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
         THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST, PIN-683 556

    5    SHAHUL HAMEED, MUNDAKKAL,
         ALLAPRA P.O., WARD NO.10,
         VENGOLA, PERUMBAVOOR, PIN-683 556,
         ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

         R1-R2 BY ADV Sri.C.A.NAVAS, SC
         SRI.SYAMANTHAK B.S., G.P

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.10.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C)No.1821/2020

                                  2




                           JUDGMENT

Dated this the 6th day of October, 2021

The petitioner who is the owner in possession of

property to the extent of 29 Ares 20 Sq.Mtr. in Sy.No.102/2

of Vengola Village is before this Court seeking to command

the 1st respondent to remove the petty shop causing

obstruction to ingress and egress to the property of the

petitioner.

2. The petitioner states that a petty shop owned by

the 5th respondent has been placed in front of his property

where the petitioner proposed to construct a gate for

ingress and egress. The petitioner is paying land tax in

respect of the property regularly. Since the 5 th respondent

is causing obstruction to the petitioner, the petitioner

complained to the Panchayat authorities. Consequently, WP(C)No.1821/2020

the Panchayat authorities issued Ext.P2 notice to the 5 th

respondent stating that the placing of the petty shop in front

of the property of the petitioner, is violation of the conditions

of agreement and directing the 5th respondent to shift the

petty shop within seven days.

3. The petitioner would contend that inspite of

Ext.P2, the 5th respondent has not shifted the petty shop

and therefore the petitioner is not in a position to freely

enjoy his property.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st

respondent Panchayat submitted that the petty shop of the

5th respondent has been started under a Scheme of ICDS.

The 5th respondent is a Physically Handicapped person. It

is on the compassionate ground the petty shop has been

sanctioned. In the circumstances, the learned Standing

Counsel submitted that appropriate orders may be passed

in this writ petition.

WP(C)No.1821/2020

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned Standing Counsel representing respondents 1 to 3

and the learned Government Pleader representing the 4 th

respondent. Though notice was issued, the 5th respondent

has no appearance in the writ petition.

6. It is trite law that persons holding land adjacent

to public roads and Highways have a right to access the

road/Highway from any point of their land. In the present

case, Ext.P3 would show that the establishment of the 5 th

respondent is situated right in front of the proposed

entrance gate of the petitioner. It therefore causes

obstruction. Taking into consideration the circumstances,

the Panchayat authorities have already issued Ext.P2

notice to the 5th respondent. Ext.P2 has not been

successfully challenged by the 5th respondent.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and

shift the petty shop of the 5th respondent from the present

location where the petitioner proposes to construct an entry

gate. The action in this regard should be completed within

a period of six weeks.

Sd/-

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1821/2020

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LAND TAX RECEIPT NO.KL07050108802/2019 DATED 26.09.2019 EXHIBIT P1(a) THE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION FOR THE LAND TAX RECEIPT EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER FORWARDED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO REMOVE THE SHOPS WITHIN SEVEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED NO.A510428/19 ON 2.12.2019 EXHIBIT P2(a) THE TRUE TRANSLATION OF NOTICE WAS ISSUED NO.A510428/19 ON 2.12.2019 EXHIBIT P3 THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE PETTI SHOP AND FLAG HOISTING WITH CONCRETE BASEMENT INSTALLED RECENTLY EXHIBIT P3(a) THE PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING ANOTHER PETTI SHOP INSTALLED IN FRONT OF PROPERTY EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 4.12.2019 EXHIBIT P4(a) HE TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE REPRESENTATION