C.S. George vs Secretary on 28 November, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 22371 of 2007(L)


1. C.S. GEORGE,S/O. SCARIA, AGED 48,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. SECRETARY,
                       ...       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. 22371 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 is 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 favourable 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.

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 hostile. Ext.P7, at any rate, has to be quashed. The

learned counsel for the respondent justified Ext.P7 as 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 refutable

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 against the petitioner

with notice and after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to

defend the proceedings.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,
JUDGE.

Dpk