IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 19477 of 2008(R)
1. ACHUMNTAKATH AFSATH,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SECRETARY,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
3. KOOLOTH VALAPPIL LAKSHMI,
For Petitioner :SMT.VIDHYA. A.C
For Respondent :SRI.E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :15/07/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) 19477 of 2008
--------------------------------------------------------
Dated: JULY 15, 2008
JUDGMENT
The petitioner contends that by Exts.P1 and P2 decree and
judgment, they are entitled to 22 cents of land. According to the
petitioner, against Ext.P9, the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent
is pending consideration of the Appellate Court.
2. It is stated that the 3rd respondent made an attempt to
obtain a building permit in respect of the land covered by the
judgment and decree and that though the petitioner has objected
to the grant of building permit, the 3rd respondent succeeded in
obtaining the permit. According to the petitioner, on the
strength of Ext.P4 permit, the 3rd respondent started
construction of a building trespassing into a portion of their
property and thereupon Ext.P5 complaint was made before the
1st respondent.
3. On receipt of Ext.P5, it is submitted by the petitioner,
the 1st respondent issued Ext.P6 order requiring the 3rd
respondent to stop further construction. However, disobeying
Ext.P6, the 3rd respondent continued the construction. In view
WP(C) 19477/08
2
of this, further complaints were made and that resulted in
Ext.P8, yet another order, requiring the 3rd respondent to stop
the construction forthwith. Subsequent to Exts.P6 and P8
petitioner filed this writ petition complaining that in spite of the
aforesaid two orders issued by the Panchayat, the 3rd respondent
was continuing construction and that the Panchayat is not taking
any effective action for preventing further construction.
4. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent Panchayat
submits that on receipt of the complaints from the petitioner
Ext.P6 order was issued. Even thereafter complaint was again
received complaining of continued construction. It is stated
that thereafter Ext.P8 order was also issued. It is reiterated
before me that Exts.P6 and P8 orders are still in force and the 3rd
respondent cannot continue construction any more.
5. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent on the other
hand submits that he is entitled to continue construction as the
land in question belongs to her. In this proceedings the
complaint of the petitioner is regarding disobedience of Exts.P6
and P8 and this court is not expected to enquire into the claim of
title raised by the 3rd respondent and that is a matter to be
WP(C) 19477/08
3
settled by the Appellate Court. The fact remains that even as on
date, Exts.P6 and P8 orders issued by the Panchayat are still
remaining in force. If that be so, the 3rd respondent has to obey
the same and as at present, he cannot continue the construction
any more.
Therefore directing that the Panchayat will ensure
compliance of Exts.P6 and P8 orders, this writ petition is
disposed of. It is clarified that it will be open to the 3rd
respondent to seek variation of Exts.P6 and P8, if she is so
advised, in which case the Panchayat will consider the same
with notice to the petitioner also.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
mt/-