Thomas Joseph vs Thalayolaparambu Grama … on 9 April, 2007

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 11144 of 2007(B)


1. THOMAS JOSEPH, KURICHIAPARAMBIL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THALAYOLAPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THALAYOLAPARAMBU GRAMA PANCHAYATH

                For Petitioner  :SRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN NAIR

                For Respondent  :SRI.LAL GEORGE

The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE

 Dated :09/04/2007

 O R D E R
                              PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J.

                                -------------------------------

                            W.P.(C) No. 11144 OF 2007

                              -----------------------------------

                        Dated this the 9th day of April, 2007


                                       JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioner is that under the cover of

implementing Ext.R1(b) order of the Tribunal, the Panchayat which has

to accommodate the appellant before the Tribunal, is dispossessing the

petitioner from a substantial portion of room No.VI/774 in the Panchayat

shopping complex. He submitted Ext.P3 objections before the

Panchayat pointing out that there are other tenants in the market who

are in possession of more than one room and the Panchayat should

repossess one of those additional rooms rather than attempting to

dispossess the petitioner of a portion of the single room which is

occupied by him. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Panchayat to

which a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner.

2. Heard both sides. Mr.N.Muraleedharan Nair, counsel for the

petitioner would submit that in Ext.R1(d) resolution the Panchayat does

not even refer to the contention of the petitioner that there are other

tenants who are in possession of more than one room and that those

tenants should be dispossessed of one of the extra rooms. He also

submitted that the above aspect of the matter is not even touched in the

counter affidavit. Mr.Lal George, counsel for the Panchayat would invite

WPC No.11144/2007

2

my attention to the terms of Ext.R1(a) agreement and particularly to the

statement therein that after 1.4.07 the petitioner will not be entitled for

any right whatsoever over the building bearing door No.VI/774. Mr.Lal

George also placed strong reliance on the judgment of this Court in

Soman V. Kottarakkara Grama Panchayat [2003(2) KLT 1007].

Counsel submitted that the Panchayat became constrained to

repossess a portion of the big room under the occupation of the

petitioner only because of the directions in Ext.R1(b) order. The room

presently possessed by the petitioner is as big as the two rooms

possessed by any other tenants.

Mr.Muraleedharan Nair is correct when he submits that Ext.R1(d)

resolution does not refer to the contentions raised by the petitioner in

Ext.P3 objections. He is also correct in saying that the contention of the

petitioner in Ext.P3 have not been considered to by the Panchayat and

is not even answered by the Panchayat in its counter affidavit. But the

question is whether the petitioner has a legal right to insist that he

should be permitted to continue in the entirety of room No.VI/774 in the

light of the terms of Ext.R1(b) agreement and whether the petitioner is

having any legal right over the whole of room No.VI/774. The issue I

am afraid is covered against the petitioner by the judgment of this Court

in Soman’s case(supra). The Writ Petition will stand dismissed. The

WPC No.11144/2007

3

interim order presently passed will continue till 16.04.2007 only. The

Panchayat shall construct the partitioning wall at the earliest and will

renew the licence in favour of the petitioner in respect of the portion

which the petitioner will be allowed to retain.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE

btt

WPC No.11144/2007

4