Chinnamma Attupurath vs Secretary on 28 November, 2007

[Cites 2, Cited by 2]

Kerala High Court

Chinnamma Attupurath vs Secretary on 28 November, 2007

Bench: Pius C.Kuriakose

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 22323 of 2007(G)


1. CHINNAMMA ATTUPURATH,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SECRETARY, UDAYAGIRI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :28/11/2007

 O R D E R
                        PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.
                    ----------------------------------
                     W.P.(C) NO. 22323 of 2007
                    ----------------------------------
           Dated this the 28th day of November , 2007

                               JUDGMENT

Under challenge in this writ petition is Ext.P7 notice issued by the respondent Panchayat to the petitioner directing demolition of a building put up by the petitioner on the property comprised in Sy.No.53/1A. The case of the petitioner is that the property belongs to her absolutely by virtue of Ext.P3 Gift Deed executed by her husband who was having absolute title by virtue of Exts.P1 and P2 certificate of purchases. The petitioner approached the Civil Court challenging Ext.P7. Before that Court, it was contended by the Panchayat that a suit is not maintainable since Ext.P7 is a notice issued under the provision of the Land Conservancy Act and the petitioner has remedies under the statute available against Ext.P7. The above contention found favour with the learned Munsiff, who dismissed the suit.

2. The Panchayat has filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein it is contended that Ext.P7 was issued by the Panchayat under Section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act.

WPC No.22323/2007 2

3. Heard Sri. Blaze K.Jose the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M.Sasindran, the learned counsel for the Panchayat. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Panchayat is not entitled to blow hot and cold. Ext.P7, at any rate, has to be quashed. The learned counsel for the respondent justified Ext.P7 as a notice issued under Section 235W of the Panchayat Raj Act and would request that the petitioner be relegated to other remedies available against Ext.P7.

I have considered the rival submissions. In view of the irrefutable provision that Ext.P7 does not purport to invoke any statutory provision which enables the Panchayat to issue such notice to the petitioner, I quash Ext.P7. The writ Petition will stand allowed. However, it is made clear that this judgment will not stand in the way of the respondent initiating fresh proceedings invoking proper statutory provision against the petitioner with notice to and after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to defend the proceedings.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE.

Dpk WPC No.22323/2007 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court