Vallikkunnam Grama Panchayath vs Shaji Nath and Others

A.V. Ramakrishna Pillai, J.—The 3rd respondent in the writ petition is in review.

The writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein for a direction to the 3rd respondent to shift Anganvady No. 132 from his premises to another building. The review petitioner alleges that the notice to appear on the writ petition was duly served on the review petitioner on 18.06.2015; and accordingly, he had contacted the counsel at the High Court and requested him to file vakkalath on the said case. However, on 23.06.2015, the counsel could not file vakkalath and represent the matter, as a result of which, the writ petition was allowed. The review petitioner alleges that the writ petitioner approached this Court concealing material facts and the averment in the writ petition that the writ petitioner is the owner of the property, wherein the anganvady is situated and he wanted to shift the anganvady to a new place, is false. According to the review petitioner, the property belongs to the Government. It is further alleged that the fact that the Government is the owner of the property is concealed in the writ petition and the writ petitioner made this Court to believe that he is the owner of the property and gained undue advantage of the same, which resulted in allowing the writ petition. According to the review petitioner, it is an error apparent on the face of the record, which warrants a review.

A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, who is the writ petitioner.

Arguments have been heard.

First of all, it is crucial to note that this is not a case, where the review petitioner has responded to the notice and appeared before this Court on the date of posting. I would have recalled the judgment, had it been passed without hearing the review petitioner in spite of his appearance. The review petitioner admits that notice was duly served and he had engaged a lawyer. However, he did not appear before this Court on the date of posting. No genuine reasons are stated for the non-appearance of the petitioner either directly or through his counsel.

The writ petition came up for hearing on 16.06.2015. The learned Government Pleader took notice for respondents 1, 2 & 4. Notice to the 3rd respondent was issued by special messenger and the case was posted to 23.06.2015. It was revealed from the endorsement made by the Registry that the service on the 3rd respondent was complete. There was no representation for the 3rd respondent and the matter was heard and disposed of by the impugned judgment.

Coming to the facts of the case, it can be seen that the review petition is filed by the Secretary of the Vallikkunnam Grama Panchayath. The 1st respondent has a definite case that to his knowledge, the panchayath has not authorized the Secretary to file the above review petition before this Court. On a specific query put by me to the review petitioner as to whether the Secretary has been authorized by the panchayath to submit this review petition, the answer of the learned counsel for the review petitioner was that the Secretary is competent to represent the panchayath; and therefore, no authorization is required.

From Ext.R1(a) produced along with the counter affidavit, which is the copy of the relevant page of the basic tax register in respect of three cents of property, wherein Anganvadi No. 132 is situated, it can be seen that the said property stands in the name of the writ petitioner''s mother, Lakshmikkuttiamma, and her sisters. The three cents of property, wherein the aforesaid anganvadi is situated, is a part of large extent of property comprised in Old Sy. No. 35/11B and the new Sy. No. 70/12 of Vallikunnam Village. Annexure-R1(b) is the copy of the resolution of the panchayath dated 28.09.2013. The said resolution was on account of the following;

(a) The writ petitioner made a request before the panchayath to shift the anganvadi to a nearby place so as to enable him to reconstruct the residential building;

(b) According to the panchayath, shifting of the anganvadi should be on condition that the writ petitioner should provide an alternate site and also to provide a rented building for the uninterrupted functioning of the anganvadi till the panchayath constructs the building in the alternate site surrendered by the writ petitioner.

The matter was placed before the committee held on 28.09.2013. It is evident from Ext.R1(b) that while the matter was under discussion, the Secretary pointed out that since the building is noted in the asset register of the panchayath, Government sanction is necessary for transfer. Ext.P2 in the writ petition is the copy of an agreement entered into between the Secretary of the panchayath and the writ petitioner, wherein the writ petitioner has agreed that he would provide an alternate site and also agreed to withdraw the suit, OS No. 337/2010, pending before the Sub Court, Mavelikkara. In the counter affidavit, it is pointed out by the 1st respondent, who is the writ petitioner, that Ext.P2 agreement was placed before the Panchayath Committee and the committee, in its meeting held on 15.11.2014, unanimously accepted the agreement and authorized the Secretary to submit the proposal before the Government. Annexure R1-(c) is the copy of the resolution dated 15.11.2014. The permission sought for in furtherance of the said resolution was issued by the Government as per Ext.P4 communication in the writ petition. The Director of Panchayath also issued permission to dismantle and auction the building as per Ext.P6. Ext.P3 shows that the panchayath made an undertaking before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions that the transfer of property could be effected as and when sanction from the Government is obtained. The writ petition was instituted when the panchayath did not take any action in spite of the permission from the Government as evidenced by Ext.P4. The writ petitioner has also produced Ext.R1(d), which is the copy of Order No. J.3722/15 dated 26.08.2015 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengannoor. Ext.R1(d) shows that the Revenue Divisional Officer has proceeded with the matter of transfer of 1.72 acres of property in Resurvey No. 71/14/2-2 of Vallikunnam Village surrendered by the writ petitioner to the panchayath for shifting the anganvadi and passed final orders directing the panchayath to take possession of the property.

What could be discerned from the above is that the Secretary of the Panchayath is guided by his own whims and fancies in filing this review petition. He has not responded to the notice in time and now has filed this review petition. Though this is a fit case, in which compensatory costs should have been ordered against the review petitioner, I am refraining from doing so for the time being.

As there is absolutely no grounds for reviewing the judgment, the review petition is dismissed.