Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

Muhammed Ali Khoori vs Pallippuram Grama Panchayat on 3 October, 2007

        

 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                      PRESENT:

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE

              WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 30TH JYAISHTA, 1940

                                 WP(C).No. 26938 of 2008



PETITIONER:


     MUHAMMED ALI KHOORI,
     S/O.UNNENKUTTY KOORI, AGED 46 YEARS,
     ADIKARITHODI HOUSE, MELMURI POST, PIN-676 514,
     REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY,
     SRI.MANOJ P.S.,S/O SIVAN, AGED 27 YEARS,
     PALISSERY HOUSE, CHERAL POST,
     ERNAKULAM-683 514


       BY ADVS.SRI.G.G.MANOJ
               SRI.JAICE JACOB


RESPONDENT(S):


1.    PALLIPPURAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
     (SPECIAL GRADE), CHERAI P.O.,
      REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2.   DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
     ERNAKULAM.

3.   THE KERALA COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY,
     SASTRA, BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-04,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.


        R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI
        R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.PRIYA SHANAVAS
        R3 BY SRI.M.P.PRAKASH, SC,
              SRI.S.RAMESH,SC,



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
     ON 20-06-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
     FOLLOWING:



sts
25/6/2018
WP(C).No. 26938 of 2008


                                APPENDIX


PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:


EXHIBIT P1      COPY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ISSUED FROM THE 1ST
                RESPONDENT DATED 3/10/2007.

EXHIBIT P2      COPY OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT'S COMMITTEE MEETING
                DATED 7/9/2007

EXHIBIT P3      COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN
                WP(C) NO.12523/2004

EXHIBIT P4      COPY OF THE ORDER IN WP(C) NO.4657/2007 DATED 12/3/2007

EXHIBIT P5      COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN
                WP(C) NO.35042/07 DATED 30/11/2007

EXHIBIT P6      COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER
                BEFORE THE MEMBER SECRETARY OF 3RD RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P7      COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/08/2008 VIDE REFERENCE
                NUMBER C346/06.

EXHIBIT P8      COPY OF THE ORDER ANNEXED TO EXHIBIT P7 WHICH IS THE
                IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ISSUED VIDE
                REFERENCE NUMBER GO(RT) NO.67/2008/S&TD.


RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT R1(A)   COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16/7/2009 IN WP(C)
                NO.20998/06 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.

EXHIBIT R3(A)   COPY OF THE SITE INSPECTION REPORT.



                                           /TRUE COPY/


                                           P.A.TO JUDGE


sts
25/6/2018

               A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J.
            ======================
               W.P.(C) No.26938 of 2008-F
            =======================
           Dated this the 20th day of June, 2018

                       JUDGMENT

This writ petition is pending before this Court since, 2008, challenging the order of demolition issued by the 1 st respondent Panchayath to demolish a building, constructed in violation of the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) norms. The matter gained attention of the CRZ Management Authority, pursuant to a direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.35042 of 2007. It is noted in the impugned order passed by the CRZ Authority that the construction has been undertaken 4 meter distance from the sea wall. The norms that was adverted in the impugned order were relevant at that time. Norms were revised in the year 2011. It is pointed out at Bar that the norms are being revised as per the proposed draft notification issued by the Central Government in March 2017.

2. Considering the above facts, this Court is of the view that the 3rd respondent shall consider, whether the petitioner's 2 W.P.(C) No.26938 of 2008-F construction can be protected, in accordance with the revised norms of 2011 or under the proposed draft norms of 2017. Appropriate decision shall be taken by the 3 rd respondent, after hearing the petitioner within a period of three months. It is made clear that, if the 3rd respondent finds the construction cannot be protected or regularised in terms of the revised norms, the petitioner is liable to pull down the entire construction, failing which the Panchayath shall take action for demolition of the construction, in accordance with law. Till such time, status quo shall be maintained.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE SB/23/06/2018 // true copy // P.A to Judge