{"id":204140,"date":"2008-06-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008"},"modified":"2015-08-16T21:57:14","modified_gmt":"2015-08-16T16:27:14","slug":"t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"T.P.Sethumadhavan vs The Vaniyamkulam Grama Panchayat on 25 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
T.P.Sethumadhavan vs The Vaniyamkulam Grama Panchayat on 25 June, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 25198 of 2006(Y)\n\n\n1. T.P.SETHUMADHAVAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. SYAMALA, W\/O.SETHUMADHAVAN, DO.DO.\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE VANIYAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE SECRETARY, VANIYAMKULAM GRAMA\n\n3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD.\n\n4. THE SUB COLLECTOR, OFFICE OF THE\n\n5. THE TAHSILDAR, OTTAPPALAM.\n\n6. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,\n\n7. THE HEALTH INSPECTOR,\n\n8. KERALA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,\n\n9. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT\n\n10. SRI.ABRAHAM @ KRISHNANKUTTY,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC\n\n Dated :25\/06\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J\n\n      -----------------------------------------------------------------\n                       W.P.(C).NO.25198\/2006\n      -----------------------------------------------------------------\n              Dated this the 25th day of June, 2008\n\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
     Challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P12.<\/p>\n
Petitioners also seek a declaration that, the construction of<\/p>\n
the    buildings bearing No.7\/438 to 7\/441 by the 10th<\/p>\n
respondent is in violation of the provisions contained in the<\/p>\n
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and is liable to be demolished.<\/p>\n
Consequently, orders directing demolition of the building is<\/p>\n
also sought for.\n<\/p>\n
     2. Briefly noted, the facts of the case are that, the 10th<\/p>\n
respondent is conducting a hotel in one of the rooms in the<\/p>\n
building referred to above. According to the petitioners , the<\/p>\n
building in question is situated in Purambokku land which<\/p>\n
was     formed        by reclamation of a pond                   by name<\/p>\n
Pothottikulam. It is stated that, by issuing Ext.P1 dated<\/p>\n
WP(c).No.25198\/2006            2<\/span><\/p>\n
19.6.1997 the RDO had prohibited any construction in the<\/p>\n
land. Petitioner submits that followed by this Ext.P2 was<\/p>\n
issued by the Sub Collector in 2006 and again Ext.P3 show<\/p>\n
cause notice was issued in August, 2006.\n<\/p>\n
      3. According to the petitioner, in violation of all this,<\/p>\n
construction was completed and the 10th respondent started<\/p>\n
a hotel and that too without obtaining licence from the<\/p>\n
Panchayat.       Petitioners thereupon   submitted     Ext.P6<\/p>\n
complaint to the Panchayat. They had also complained<\/p>\n
that the western boundary of the building is the eastern<\/p>\n
compound wall of the petitioner. It is stated that, on Ext.P6<\/p>\n
complaint made in 2004, the Secretary of the first<\/p>\n
respondent passed Ext.P7 order directing demolition of the<\/p>\n
building. Against Ext.P7, Ext.P9 appeal was filed by the 10th<\/p>\n
respondent before the Tribunal for Local Self Government<\/p>\n
Institutions.\n<\/p>\n
      4. During the pendency of the appeal, because of the<\/p>\n
threat of implementaion of Ext.P7, the 10th respondent filed<\/p>\n
a writ petition before this court as WP(c).No.34392\/2004.<\/p>\n
WP(c).No.25198\/2006             3<\/span><\/p>\n
By Ext.P8 judgment, that writ petition was disposed of by<\/p>\n
this court directing expeditious disposal of the appeal and<\/p>\n
further directing that in the meanwhile Ext.P7 shall not be<\/p>\n
implemented. Before the Tribunal, Exts.P10 and P11<\/p>\n
objections were filed by the Panchayat and the petitioners.<\/p>\n
In their objection petitioners contended that the building<\/p>\n
had no permit, that it was initially a thatched shed, that<\/p>\n
later the roof was changed into a tiled one         and that in<\/p>\n
2003, the building in the present condition was constructed.<\/p>\n
The Tribunal heard the appeal and by Ext.P12 order allowed<\/p>\n
the appeal and set aside Ext.P7 order of the Panchayat. It<\/p>\n
was clarified that the order will not prevent the petitioners<\/p>\n
herein from adjudicating their rights in the civil court.<\/p>\n
      5. Counsel for the petitioners attacks Ext.P12 mainly on<\/p>\n
the basis that the Tribunal erroneously concluded that the<\/p>\n
building was constructed in 1997 which was, much before<\/p>\n
Section 235(F) of the Act was implemented. According to<\/p>\n
the petitioners, the construction of the building in its<\/p>\n
present condition was completed only in 2003 and if that be<\/p>\n
WP(c).No.25198\/2006             4<\/span><\/p>\n
so, there is noncompliance with Section 235(F).<\/p>\n
      6. A reading of Ext.P12 order shows that the tribunal<\/p>\n
mainly relied on Exts.R3 and R4 assessment registers for<\/p>\n
the year 1997-98 to 2001-2002. From these documents, the<\/p>\n
Tribunal came to a factual conclusion that the 10th<\/p>\n
respondent’s building was shown as a terraced building and<\/p>\n
that the building was in existence at the time of the<\/p>\n
preparation of the document in March, 1997. It is on that<\/p>\n
factual finding that Tribunal found that, Section 235(F) of<\/p>\n
the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, which came into force only<\/p>\n
from 1.10.1999 requiring permission of the Panchayat, was<\/p>\n
inapplicable to the building in question. In this proceedings,<\/p>\n
no material has been made available, to conclude that this<\/p>\n
factual finding of the Tribunal is erroneous for any reason.<\/p>\n
      7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has a contention<\/p>\n
that the Panchayat record itself is a fabricated one. But<\/p>\n
then, if they had    such a case, that     should have been<\/p>\n
raised before the Tribunal itself, in which case the Tribunal<\/p>\n
would have gone into the correctness of that contention.<\/p>\n
WP(c).No.25198\/2006            5<\/span><\/p>\n
This has not been done. Therefore, I am not        inclined to<\/p>\n
permit the petitioners to raise this contention for the first<\/p>\n
time in this proceeding. It is also submitted that        the<\/p>\n
Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau had conducted an<\/p>\n
investigation and submitted a report suggesting that there is<\/p>\n
substance in the allegation of the petitioners that the<\/p>\n
records of the Panchayat were fabricated. If that be so,<\/p>\n
there is nothing preventing the Panchayat to make<\/p>\n
necessary correction in its record and this also has not been<\/p>\n
done. Therefore, on the material available, the Tribunal was<\/p>\n
perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the<\/p>\n
building    in    question was   constructed   prior  to  the<\/p>\n
introduction      of Section 235(F). If that be so, Ext.P12<\/p>\n
deserves to be upheld and I do so.\n<\/p>\n
      8. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the smoke<\/p>\n
emanating from the hotel of the 10th respondent, is creating<\/p>\n
nuisance and is directly coming to their bed room. He also<\/p>\n
makes reference to Ext.P16 letter from the Pollution Control<\/p>\n
Board wherein the Pollution Control Board after enquiry<\/p>\n
WP(c).No.25198\/2006           6<\/span><\/p>\n
informed them that there is substance in the complaint<\/p>\n
and that the same has been forwarded to the Panchayat for<\/p>\n
necessary action. It is stated that, despite all this the<\/p>\n
Panchayat is remaining inactive on the complaint. Yet<\/p>\n
another plea that is raised by the Counsel for the petitioners<\/p>\n
is that the 10th respondent has not obtained licence for the<\/p>\n
hotel that he has establised in the building in question. The<\/p>\n
Panchayat would also support the plea of the petitioners<\/p>\n
that the hotel has no licence. It is pointed out that the<\/p>\n
Panchayat by its order dated 26.9.2006, inform the 10th<\/p>\n
respondent that they have resolved to grant licence subject<\/p>\n
to production of consent from the Pollution Control Board<\/p>\n
and an NOC from the Health inspector.\n<\/p>\n
      9. To the above submission of the Panchayat, learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the 10th respondent replies that such intimation<\/p>\n
was given only in April, 2008. He also refers to Ext.R10(b),<\/p>\n
a licence granted by the Panchayat for the year 2005-06<\/p>\n
and according to him though he had made applications for<\/p>\n
renewal of the licence, in view of the pendency of the writ<\/p>\n
WP(c).No.25198\/2006            7<\/span><\/p>\n
petition the Panchayat has not passed orders granting<\/p>\n
renewal. It is also submitted that, on receipt of the<\/p>\n
communication requiring consent of the Pollution Control<\/p>\n
Board and NOC from the Health Inspector, the 10th<\/p>\n
respondent has filed an appeal before the Standing<\/p>\n
Committee of the Panchayat and the appeal is pending.<\/p>\n
From Ext.R10(b), it is evident that the 10th respondent had<\/p>\n
licence for the year 2005-06 and the renewal is the subject<\/p>\n
matter of the appeal. Therefore, at this stage this court will<\/p>\n
not be     justified in pronouncing on the continuance of the<\/p>\n
hotel business. However, if the Pollution Control Board has<\/p>\n
forwarded the report as stated by them in Ext.P16, it is a<\/p>\n
matter for the Panchayat to take necessary action on the<\/p>\n
basis of such communication.\n<\/p>\n
      10. The other contention that is remaining to be dealt<\/p>\n
with is the claim of the petitioners that the construction<\/p>\n
undertaken by the 10th respondent is in the Purambokku<\/p>\n
land by reclaiming a pond. Counsel for the 10th respondent<\/p>\n
submits that the janmam right in relation to the land in<\/p>\n
WP(c).No.25198\/2006            8<\/span><\/p>\n
question was of one Sri. Narayanan Ezhuthachan and in<\/p>\n
terms of the Land Reforms Act, Ext.R10(e) purchase<\/p>\n
certificate was also issued in 1972. It is stated that the total<\/p>\n
extent of the plot was 34 cents and the 10th respondent and<\/p>\n
2 others purchased the property by Ext.R10(g) document in<\/p>\n
1981. It is stated that, thereafter, among the co-owners the<\/p>\n
property was partitioned in 1986 by Ext.R10(h).         Hence,<\/p>\n
according to him, the contention that the land is<\/p>\n
purambokku is incorrect.\n<\/p>\n
       11. The learned Government Pleader, on the other<\/p>\n
hand, would submit that the property was an unassessed<\/p>\n
land in respect of which a purchase certificate was issued to<\/p>\n
3 persons in 1972. It is stated that, out of the 34 cents the<\/p>\n
10th respondent is in possession of 12 cents of land. It is<\/p>\n
stated that, in 1994 the 10th respondent applied for payment<\/p>\n
of basic tax and in 1996 the Sub Court issued order<\/p>\n
prohibiting     change of the nature of the land.    It is also<\/p>\n
pointed out that in 2006 Ext.R10(m) order was passed by<\/p>\n
the Sub Collector directing acceptance of basic tax on a<\/p>\n
WP(c).No.25198\/2006             9<\/span><\/p>\n
provisional basis. According to him, the land was filled up<\/p>\n
subsequent to 2000 and that complaints in that behalf were<\/p>\n
also received from the petitioners and others. It is pointed<\/p>\n
out that, a hearing was conducted by the Sub collector and<\/p>\n
that when the validity of the purchase certificate was<\/p>\n
doubted they have referred the matter to the appellate<\/p>\n
authority under the Kerala Land Reforms Act, Trissur, where<\/p>\n
the matter is pending.\n<\/p>\n
      12. From the above, it is evident that while the<\/p>\n
petitioners produced the purchase certificate of 1972 and<\/p>\n
Ext.R10(g) and (h) documents of title, the Government have<\/p>\n
raised a doubt on the validity         of the very purchase<\/p>\n
certificate itself. If ultimately the purchase certificate and<\/p>\n
the transactions are upheld, the argument that the structure<\/p>\n
in question is a purambokku may not survive. Therefore the<\/p>\n
correctness or otherwise of the contention now raised by the<\/p>\n
petitioners will dependent upon the outcome of the appeal<\/p>\n
that is now pending before the appellate authority under<\/p>\n
the Land Reforms Act.\n<\/p>\n
WP(c).No.25198\/2006             10<\/span><\/p>\n
      13. In view of the above factual position, it may not be<\/p>\n
proper for this court to express any thing on merits on this<\/p>\n
contention. Therefore, I direct that, if ultimately the land is<\/p>\n
found to be Purambokku, it will be open to the appropriate<\/p>\n
authority to take appropriate action as is permissible.<\/p>\n
      The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                ANTONY DOMINIC\nvi                                  JUDGE\n\nWP(c).No.25198\/2006    11<\/span>\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court T.P.Sethumadhavan vs The Vaniyamkulam Grama Panchayat on 25 June, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 25198 of 2006(Y) 1. T.P.SETHUMADHAVAN, … Petitioner 2. SYAMALA, W\/O.SETHUMADHAVAN, DO.DO. Vs 1. THE VANIYAMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT … Respondent 2. THE SECRETARY, VANIYAMKULAM GRAMA 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PALAKKAD. 4. THE SUB COLLECTOR, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-204140","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.P.Sethumadhavan vs The Vaniyamkulam Grama Panchayat on 25 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.P.Sethumadhavan vs The Vaniyamkulam Grama Panchayat on 25 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-16T16:27:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.P.Sethumadhavan vs The Vaniyamkulam Grama Panchayat on 25 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-16T16:27:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1645,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008\",\"name\":\"T.P.Sethumadhavan vs The Vaniyamkulam Grama Panchayat on 25 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-16T16:27:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.P.Sethumadhavan vs The Vaniyamkulam Grama Panchayat on 25 June, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T.P.Sethumadhavan vs The Vaniyamkulam Grama Panchayat on 25 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.P.Sethumadhavan vs The Vaniyamkulam Grama Panchayat on 25 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-16T16:27:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.P.Sethumadhavan vs The Vaniyamkulam Grama Panchayat on 25 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-16T16:27:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008"},"wordCount":1645,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008","name":"T.P.Sethumadhavan vs The Vaniyamkulam Grama Panchayat on 25 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-16T16:27:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-p-sethumadhavan-vs-the-vaniyamkulam-grama-panchayat-on-25-june-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.P.Sethumadhavan vs The Vaniyamkulam Grama Panchayat on 25 June, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204140","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=204140"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204140\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204140"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204140"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204140"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}