IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 1744 of 2011(P)
1. HOTEL AROOR RESIDENCY, AROOR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,
... Respondent
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,
3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
4. AROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
5. P.K.DINESAN, S/O.KESAVAN, PUNNAKKAL
6. SINDHU DINESH, W/O.P.K.DINESAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.L.SHENOY
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :20/01/2011
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C)No. 1744 OF 2011
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 20th day of January, 2011
J U D G M E N T
Hotel Aroor Residency, the petitioner contends that
it is being run on a partnership basis and that the firm is the
absolute owner of the building bearing door No.A.P.VII/492-D
and the immovable property wherein the building is situated.
It is submitted that change of ownership of the building was
effected on the basis of Exts. P1 to P10. It is further contended
that the 5th respondent has preferred Ext.P14 petition before
the 4th respondent raising untenable contentions affecting the
petitioner’s right over the aforesaid building without
impleading the proper parties and thereupon, as an abundant
caution, the petitioner has filed Ext.P15 before the 4th
respondent. In short, the apprehension of the petitioner is
that without affording an opportunity of being heard the issue
that has been raised as the proceedings initiated based on
Ext.P14 would be finalised. In such eventuality it would entail
in-expiable hardship to the petitioner and it is to avoid such a
situation that Ext.P14 has been filed. In the wake of the said
WPC.1744/2011
: 2 :
facts and circumstances the petitioner seeks an opportunity of
being heard in the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P14.
Evidently, the subject matter in Ext.P14 pertains to the
ownership of the property which appears to have been
changed in the name of the petitioner as per Ext.P1 to P10. I
have carefully considered the pleadings in this writ petition.
It is obvious from the same that apprehension of the petitioner
can not be said to be unfounded as long as the issue raised as
per Ext.P14 is one touching the ownership of the aforesaid
building. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ
petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the
respondents. As noticed hereinbefore, Ext.P14 petition has
been preferred by the 5th respondent before the 4th respondent
and it is pending before the 4th respondent and apprehending
action in violation of the principles of natural justice, the
petitioner has also preferred Ext.P15 and it is also pending
before the 4th respondent. Indisputably, Exts. P14 and P15
pertains to the ownership of the building referred above. In
the said circumstances, it will only be appropriate for the 4th
respondent to afford an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner as also the 5th respondent before finalizing the
WPC.1744/2011
: 3 :
proceedings initiated based on Ext.P14.
Therefore, there shall be a direction to the 4th
respondent to afford an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner as also to the 5th respondent before finalization of
the proceedings initiated based on Ext.P14. Ext.P15 shall
also taken up for hearing along with Ext.P14. Disposed of
accordingly.
Sd/-
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
jma //true copy//
P.a to Judge