Kerala High Court
Georgekutty Mathai vs Mannarkadu Grama Panchayath on 12 October, 2018
Author: Anu Sivaraman
Bench: Anu Sivaraman
WP(C).21407/18 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
FRIDAY ,THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2018 / 20TH ASWINA, 1940
WP(C).No. 21407 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
GEORGEKUTTY MATHAI,
S/O MATHEN MATHAI, AGED 67 YERS, THODIYIL
VEEDU,MANNARKADU P.O., KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV. SRI.M.S.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1 MANNARKADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MANNARKADU P.O.,KOTTAYAM-
686 019.
2 THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH
KOTTAYAM-686 001.
R1 BY SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
OTHER PRESENT:
E.S.ASHRAF GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
12.10.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:888
WP(C).21407/18 2
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No. 21407 of 2018
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:
"i. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to start Gramin market and Taxi stand in the property acquired from petitioner as notified by them.
ii. to declare that any violation from the purpose for which property was acquired is illegal and malafide. iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the 1st respondent from starting a fish market in front of the Shopping Mall of the petitioner deviating from the purpose for which land was acquired. iv. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 1st respondent to return the property acquired from the petitioner if it is not used for the purpose as mentioned in the notification."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayat.
3. The petitioner contends that certain properties of the petitioner had been acquired by the 1st respondent pursuant to Exhibit P1 notification for the purpose of starting a Gramin Market and Taxi Stand. It WP(C).21407/18 3 is stated that in the balance portion of the property, the petitioner has constructed a shopping mall. The contention of the petitioner is that the compensation due on the acquisition by Exhibit P1 has still not been disbursed to the petitioner. It is further stated that deviating from the proposal in Exhibit P1, the respondents are now converting the property acquired into a fish market. It is stated that the proposal for the taxi stand has been given up and if the fish market is permitted to be started in the premises, the petitioner will be put to grave difficulties. The petitioner submitted complaints before the respondents but, to no avail.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Panchayat contending that the property had been acquired for the construction of a Gramin Market and a Taxi Stand. It is contended that a vegetable stall is functioning in the property and there is a proposal to start a fish stall by the Matsyafed. It is stated that the licence in respect of the fish market will be granted only after all due procedures are complied with and it shall be ensured that it will not cause any problem to the residents of the locality.
5. An Advocate Commission has been taken out by the petitioner for ascertaining the situation prevalent in the property. A detailed commission report has also been placed on record. It is stated that it is clear from the report that preparation for starting a fish stall in the property is under way. It is stated that the fish stall has not started WP(C).21407/18 4 functioning and that the construction activities are going on. A sketch has also been made available showing that a canal has been newly built between the property of the Panchayat and the petitioner's property. It is stated that the construction is only under way and that the canal is now in blocked condition with no free flow of water. It is also stated in the commission report that the Secretary of the Panchayat has stated that the proposal for taxi stand has been given up.
6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Panchayat would contend that the apprehensions of the petitioner are totally unfounded. It is submitted that no waste water from the fish stall would be allowed to flow into the newly built canal and that a proper provision for draining such waste water including construction of a soak pit. It is stated that it will be only after complying with all due procedure that the licences for fish stall will be granted. It is stated that fish stall is only a part of the Gramin Market proposed in the premises and that the contention that the proposal for the taxi stand is given up is completely incorrect. It is stated that the property is being put to use as stated in the notification as a taxi stand and Gramin Market itself. It is stated that the free flow of water in the newly constructed canal will also be ensured by the respondents, since the said canal is only intended for draining of rain water. It is stated that no waste water from the fish stall will be let out into the said canal as well. It is further submitted that the petitioner in this writ petition will WP(C).21407/18 5 be informed within a period of one week as to who is the competent authority to be approached for the purpose of disbursal of the compensation due as per Exhibit P1 notification.
In the above view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of directing that the fish stall shall be permitted to function in the premises in question only after taking due precautions in the matter as also after providing soak pit for the waste water emanating therefrom. The respondents shall take steps to see that the newly constructed canal is also maintained in a clean and proper condition. The respondents shall also take appropriate steps to see that all requirements of law for ensuring the health and safety of the residents of the locality are also complied with.
Sd/-
ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE vgs15/10 WP(C).21407/18 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION FOR
ACQUISITION OF LAND.
EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT DATED
23.6.2018.
EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BY PETITIONER
BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.6.18.
EXHIBIT P4: PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
FISH MARKET IN FRONT OF THE SHOPPING MALL.
EXHIBIT P5: PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
FISH MARKET IN FRONT OF THE SHOPPING MALL.