Babu Abraham vs The Kothamangalam Municipality
2024 Latest Caselaw 4669 Ker

Kerala High Court

Babu Abraham vs The Kothamangalam Municipality on 6 February, 2024

Author: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

Bench: P.V.Kunhikrishnan

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
       THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
  TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 17TH MAGHA,
                            1945
                  WP(C) NO. 18122 OF 2015
PETITIONER:

          BABU ABRAHAM PUKKUNNEL, AGED 68 YEARS
          S/O.ABRAHAM, PUKKUNNEL HOUSE, PUTHUPADY
          P.O.KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY,
          (VIA) MUVATTUPUZHA
          BY ADVS.
          SRI.N.M.MADHU
          SMT.C.S.RAJANI


RESPONDENTS:

   1      THE KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY
          REPRSENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL
          OFFICE,
          KOTHAMANGALAM 686 691
   2      BEENA GIBI
          W/O. GIBI JACOB, MEMBER OF WARD NO
          24,KOTHAMANGALAM MUNICIPLAITY, RESIDING AT
          MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, KARUKADOM,
          KOTHAMANGALAM (VIA) 686 691
          BY ADVS.
          V.M.KURIAN
          SHRI.PEEYUS A KOTTAM, SC, KOTHAMANGALAM
          MUNICIPALITY
          SHRI.JOICE GEORGE, SC, KOTHAMANGALAM
          MUNICIPALITY
THIS    WRIT   PETITION   (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).18122/2015
                                            2



                 P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
              -------------------------------------------
                   W.P(C).No.18122 of 2015
              -------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 6th day of February, 2024

                               JUDGMENT

The above Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:

i. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P6. ii. To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to take appropriate steps to cause measurement of the puramboke in around the area by competent authorities at the earliest. iii. Pass such other orders as deem fit and proper including that of cost [SIC]

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P6, a notice

demanding the petitioner to remove the earth from the front side of

the petitioner's building. The petitioner opposed the same mainly

for the reason that the petitioner was not heard before issuing

Ext.P6. It is also submitted that, if the earth is removed as W.P(C).18122/2015

demanded in Ext.P6, the entire rain water and waste water from the

nearby drainage abutting the National Highway would flow to the

petitioner's property thereby making it impossible to enter the

building from that side. According to the petitioner, respondents

are settling the scores as earlier when there was a move to shift a

nearby auto-stand to the front side of the petitioner, the petitioner

approached this Court and this Court delivered Ext.P4 judgment

and that is why the present proceedings.

3. When this Writ Petition came up for consideration

before this court on 17.06.2015, this Court passed the following

order:

'Heard. Admit.

The learned Standing Counsel takes notice for R1. Issue ntoice to R2 by speed post.

The operation of Ext.P6 shall be kept in abeyance on condition that the petitioner shall not reduce any portions of the property belonging to the respondent Municipality to his possession.

This order shall be in force for a period of two weeks.

Post after two weeks in the petition list.' W.P(C).18122/2015

4. The interim order was extended until further orders

from 01.07.2015. In the light of the above interim order, no further

order is necessary. The interim order dated 17.06.2015, which is

extended until further orders on 01.07.2015, can be retained. But I

make it clear that, if any further proceedings is to be initiated

against the petitioner, the Municipality should issue notice to the

petitioner and hear him before passing any order.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following

directions:

a) The interim order dated 17.06.2015 is made absolute.

b) If any proceeding is initiated against the petitioner by the Municipality, the Municipality shall issue notice to the petitioner and hear him before proceeding with the matter.

Sd/-

P. V. KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE Sbna/ W.P(C).18122/2015

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18122/2015

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY ISSUED BY THE TALUK SURVEYOR,KOTHAMANGALAM EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT DATED 27- 04-2012 APPROVED FROM THE RESPONDENT MUNICIPALITY EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE APPROVAL LETTER DATED 13- 01-2003 ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06-01-2014

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20-03-2013

EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO,2-6385/15 DATED 08-06-2015 EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ROUGH SKETCH