Valsamma P.G vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 8022 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
     WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 8TH ASHADHA, 1944
                        WP(C) NO. 42599 OF 2018
PETITIONER:

          VALSAMMA P.G
          AGED 62 YEARS
          W/O LATE MOHANDAS P.V., SAIVALSAM HOUSE, P.V.SREEDHARAN
          ROAD, KUMBALAM P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-682 506.
          BY ADVS.
          KALEESWARAM RAJ
          SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY
          KUM.A.ARUNA


RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
          DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM, KERALA-695 001.
    2     AROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE AROOR GRAMA
          PANCHAYAT, CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688534.
    3     SECRETARY
          AROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, OFFICE OF THE AROOR GRAMA
          PANCHAYAT, CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 534.
    4     SRI.PADMAKUMAR
          MEMBER, WARD NO.20, AROOR GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THAMARAKULAM
          HOUSE, AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 534.
          BY ADV DR.V.N.SANKARJEE, SC, R2 & R3
          SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 42599 OF 2018
                                2


               P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
              ------------------------------
             W.P.(C).No. 42599 of 2018
      ----------------------------------------------
       Dated this the 29th day of June, 2022

                       JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following

prayers:

"(i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exts.P3 and P6 as unjust illegal and arbitrary.

(ii) To declare that the respondents can not initiate proceedings against the petitioner under S.218 of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1960 since there is no public thodu in the property as evident from Ext.P7.

(iii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refrain from initiating proceedings against the property mentioned in Ext.P3 on the basis of Ext.P3 and Ext.P6.

(iv) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue with the construction of the boundary wall in the property mentioned in Ext.P3.

(v) Issue such other orders directions or writ as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case."[SIC]

2. The petitioner is a resident of Aroor Grama WP(C) NO. 42599 OF 2018

Panchayat. This writ petition is filed aggrieved by

Exts.P3 and P6. According to the petitioner, there is no

public thodu in the property of the petitioner as evident

by Ext.P7. It is the case of the petitioner that at the

instance of the 4th respondent, Exts.P3 and P6 were

issued asking the petitioner to stop the construction of

boundary wall stating that there is a public thodu in the

property of the petitioner. It is the definite case of the

petitioner that Exts.P3 and P6 are passed without giving

an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner .

3. Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and

the counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd respondents.

There is no appearance for the 4th respondent.

4. This Court perused Ext.P3 order passed by the

Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. There is nothing to

show that an opportunity of hearing is given to the

petitioner. Ext.P6 is the minutes of the meeting. The

signature of the petitioner is there in Ext.P6. The

definite case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was

not able to submit his contention before the authorities. WP(C) NO. 42599 OF 2018

If that is the case, Exts.P3 and P6 can be set aside,

without expressing any opinion on merit. Let the

Panchayat reconsider the matter, after giving an

opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other

affected parties. To facilitate the Panchayat to consider

the matter afresh, Exts.P3 and P6 can be set aside.

Therefore this writ petition is disposed of in the

following manner:

          i.     Exts.P3 and P6 are set aside.

          ii.    The 2nd respondent is directed to reconsider

the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner and other affected parties, as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

iii. Before passing final orders, the 2nd respondent

will conduct an inspection in the disputed place with

notice to the petitioner and other affected parties.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN DM JUDGE WP(C) NO. 42599 OF 2018

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 42599/2018

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN PREPARED BY THE COMMISSIONER IN O.S.NO.105/84. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.11.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3        TRUE   COPY   OF  THE   NOTICE  DATED
                  31.10.2018   ISSUED    BY   THE   3RD
                  RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4        TRUE   COPY   OF   THE  REPLY   DATED

8.11.2018 SUBMITTED BYT HE PETITIONER TO EXT.P3.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 31.10.2018.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE PANCHAYATH DATED 3.12.2018.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 16.11.2018 RECEIVED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, AROOR.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 7.4.2018 FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS :

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ASSET REGISTER OF THE RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT WITH REFERENCE TO CULVERTS AND BRIDGES.

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE