Kerala High Court
Sarath Chandran Nair vs Tribunal For Local Self Government ... on 26 April, 1988
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/22ND SRAVANA, 1936
WP(C).No. 20971 of 2014 (V)
----------------------------
PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER:
--------------------------------
SARATH CHANDRAN NAIR,
USHA MANDIRAM, NOW RESIDING AT SAUPARNIKA
KODAMTHURUTHU, KUTHIATHODU, CHERTHALA
ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
------------------------------------
1. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.
2. THE TOWN PLANNER,
OFFICE OF THE URBAN PLANNING, PAZHAVEEDU.P.O
THIRUVAMPADI JUNCTION, ALAPPUZHA-688002.
3. THE KODAMTHURUTHU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
OFFICE OF THE KODAMTHURUTHU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
(SPECIAL GRADE) KUTHIATHODU P.O. CHERTHALA,
ALAPPUZHA - 685533
4. C.L.USHA KUMARI,
USHAMANDIRAM, KUTHIATHODU.P.O, CHERTHALA
ALAPPUZHA-685553.
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMR.K.A.SANJEETHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 20971 of 2014 (V)
----------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------------
EXT.P1 COPY OF THE REGISTERED PARTITION DEED NO.979 DATED 26.04.1988.
EXT.P2 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 11.7.2013,WITH A SITE PLAN
EXT.P3 COPY OF THE PERMIT NO.C3.3162/2013 DATED 22.11.2013
EXT.P4 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT 17.2.2014
EXT.P5 COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15.3.2014
EXT.P6 COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 20.3.2014 OF THE OVERSEER, L S G D
SECTION
EXT.P7 COPY OF THE ORDER NO. C3-3162/2013 DATED 20.03.2014
EXT.P8 COPY OF THE NO.C3-3162/13 DATED 29.3.2014
EXT.P9 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C493/2014/K.DIS DATED 03.04.2014
EXT.P10 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C3-3182/13 DATED 03.05.2014
EXT.P11 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.C6-2176/2014 DATED 4.7.2014
EXT.P12 COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN I.A.1799/2014.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE.
dlk
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.20971 of 2014
-------------------------------
Dated 13th August, 2014
JUDGMENT
A perusal of the pleadings in this writ petition would reveal that the dispute involved is between siblings. The 4th respondent is the sister of the petitioner. As against a plan submitted by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P2 the petitioner raised certain objections regarding the violation of provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Building Rules. According to the petitioner, such objections raised by him were virtually accepted by the second respondent, as is obvious from Ext.P9. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently, taking into account Ext.P9, the 4th respondent was directed under Ext.P10 to submit a revised plan rectifying the defects noted in Ext.P9. Subsequently, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P11 letter to the 4th respondent directing her to submit a revised plan for building construction in the property comprised in Sy.No.245/9. Challenging Ext.P11 the 4th respondent approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions by filing Appeal No.851 of 2014. Evidently, the 4th respondent sought for an interim order in and vide I.A.No.1799 of 2014 in Appeal No.851 of 2014. That I.A. was allowed as per Ext.P12 WP(C).No.20971/2014 2 by which operation of Ext.P11 was stayed. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of Ext.P12 and stay of all further proceedings in Appeal No.851 of 2014 pending before the first respondent. The further prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of an order restraining the 4th respondent from making any construction in terms of Ext.P3 plan in the property comprised in Survey No.249/9 of Kodamthuruthu Village.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.
3. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the 3rd and 4th respondents in this proceedings.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that, in fact, Ext.P9 requiring the 4th respondent to stop the construction of the building was issued by the 3rd respondent at his instance and it was the said order that constrained the 3rd respondent to issue Ext.P10 and then Ext.P11. I have already adverted to the contents of Exts.P10 and P11. It is submitted that Ext.P12 would efface the effect of Exts.P9 to P11 and in WP(C).No.20971/2014 3 such circumstances it is as good as permitting the petitioner to effect construction despite Ext.P9. Taking note of the aforesaid contentions I am of the view that the petitioner has to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions with appropriate application to get himself impleaded in the pending appeal and to file appropriate petition seeking modification/vacation of the interim order raising all legally and factually permitted contentions. At any rate, I am of the view that, since the order in Ext.P12 is only a stay of Ext.P11 order whereby the 4th respondent was required to submit a revised plan for consideration it will be expedient to the petitioner to take recourse the manner referred above. In the said circumstances, without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to seek for his impleadment in the appeal and to file appropriate petition raising his contentions and prayers this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS/dlk