IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 16801 of 2010(A)
1. VALSA JOSE,W/O.M.O.JOSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PALGHAT MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, PALGHAT MUNICIPALITY,
3. ASHOK KUMAR, VIPIN NIVAS(23),
For Petitioner :SRI.K.M.FIROZ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :01/06/2010
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.16801 of 2010-A
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by the stop memo issued by the
Municipality as per Ext.P1. The same is passed on the basis of a complaint
filed by the third respondent. The petitioner contends that the property was
purchased as per Ext.P2 registered sale deed and thereafter mutation was
effected and the petitioner is in ownership and possession of the property
which is supported by Ext.P3 tax receipt produced by the petitioner. Ext.P5
is the building permit issued by the Secretary of the Municipality and
thereafter the petitioner started construction of a residential house as per the
approved plan.
2. On issuance of Ext.P1, the petitioner applied for a copy of the
complaint and the same has been produced as Ext.P6. It appears that the
complaint raised therein is that the area wherein the petitioner is
constructing a residential building, is one earmarked for a playground as
per the approved lay out of the Ayodhya Nagar Housing Colony. Ext.P7 is
the objection submitted by the petitioner before the Municipality. It is
submitted that no further orders have been passed so far, which has
wpc 16801/2010 2
prevented the petitioner from continuing with the construction.
3. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality.
4. It is submitted that a decision will be taken by the Secretary of the
Municipality after hearing the petitioner and the third respondent,
expeditiously, and at any rate, within a period of one month from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The same is recorded.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/