Radhakrishnan vs Varappuzha Grama Panchayath
2024 Latest Caselaw 5597 Ker

Kerala High Court

Radhakrishnan vs Varappuzha Grama Panchayath on 16 February, 2024

Author: Murali Purushothaman

Bench: Murali Purushothaman

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
     FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945
                      WP(C) NO. 5222 OF 2024
PETITIONER:
           RADHAKRISHNAN
           AGED 52 YEARS
           S/O BABU, PANDIYALKKARAN PRAMBIL, CHIRAKAKAM, VARAPUZHA
           PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683517

          BY ADVS.
          ANOOP KRISHNA
          V.A.PRADEEP KUMAR
          JENNY THANKAM


RESPONDENTS:
     1     VARAPPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
           REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VARAPUZHA PO, ERNAKULAM
           DISTRICT., PIN - 683517

    2     THE PRESIDENT
          VARAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, VARAPUZHA PO, ERNAKULAM
          DISTRICT., PIN - 683517

    3     BIJU
          AGED 38 YEARS
          S/O JOSEPH, CHULLIKKATU HOUSE, VARAPUZHA, THEVARKAD,
          2ND WARD MEMBER, VARPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, VARAPUZHA
          PO, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683517

    4     JISHNU
          AGED 36 YEARS
          S/O NOT KNOWN, THUNDATHUM KADAVU, CONTRACTOR OF
          VARAPUZHA GRAMA PANCHAYAT WARD NO 2, VARAPUZHA PO,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT., PIN - 683517

          BY ADV Nirmal S


OTHER PRESENT:
           SMT.R.DEVI SHRI, GP


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
16.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P (C) No.5222 of 2024


                                             2


                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the owner of the property covered by

Exts.P1 and P2 settlement deeds within the jurisdiction of

the 1st respondent Panchayat. The petitioner states that

there is a pathway in front of the house of the petitioner

over which he alone has the ownership and which has not

been surrendered to the Panchayat. However, the 4th

respondent, the Contractor under directions from the 3 rd

respondent, the member of the ward, is carrying out

construction works in the pathway. Accordingly, the

petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 complaint. Ext.P3 complaint

was slated for consideration before the Panchayat

Committee on 27.12.2023, on which day the petitioner

could not appear. His inconvenience to appear on the said

day was intimated to the Secretary of the Panchayat by

Ext.P4. However, the Panchayat Committee deliberated

upon the complaint in his absence and by Ext.P5

communication, a copy of the decision taken in the

meeting held on 27.12.2023 was served on him. It is

stated in Ext.P5 resolution that the road referred to in the

petitioner's complaint is included in the asset register of

the Panchayat and that any damage caused to the

petitioner's compound wall will be rectified by the

Contractor. The petitioner states that the property is not

included in the asset register and that the decision of the

Panchayat Committee in Ext.P5 taken behind his back

cannot be sustained.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2. In

the nature of the direction, I propose to pass notice to the

3rd and 4th respondents is dispensed with.

3. Ext.P3 complaint of the petitioner was taken up

for consideration in the meeting of the Panchayat

Committee and was deliberated upon and a decision is

taken to reject his complaint. The petitioner had, vide

Ext.P4, informed the Secretary of the Panchayat about his

inconvenience to appear before the Panchayat Committee

on 27.12.2023. In spite of that, the complaint was taken

for consideration and deliberated upon and a decision

taken. The decision taken by the Panchayat committee is

in violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. Accordingly, the decision of the Panchayat

Committee in Ext.P5 is set aside. There will be a direction

to the Committee of the 1st respondent Panchayat to

consider Ext.P3 complaint of the petitioner afresh, after

hearing the petitioner. This shall be done within a period of

one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE bng

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5222/2024

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED NO 77 OF SRO ALANGAD DATED 04.01.2013 INFAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE SETTELMENT DEED NO 78 OF SRO ALANGAD DATED 04.01.2013 INFAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER

Exhibit P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 14.12.2023 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P4 THE COPY OF THIS LETTER DATED 27.12.2023 SEND TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

Exhibit P5 THE COPY OF THE COMMITTEE RESOLUTION OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 27.12.2023