High Court Kerala High Court

A.J.Varghese vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 4 September, 2008

Kerala High Court
A.J.Varghese vs State Of Kerala Represented By … on 4 September, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26288 of 2008(D)


1. A.J.VARGHESE, S/O.OUSEP, ADAVICHIRA
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
                       ...       Respondent

2. RESURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

3. TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE,

4. MALLAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.HARIDAS

                For Respondent  :SRI.SIBY MATHEW

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :04/09/2008

 O R D E R
                     ANTONY DOMINIC, J

    -----------------------------------------------------------
                    W.P.(C).No.26288/2008
    -----------------------------------------------------------
         Dated this the 4th   day of September, 2008


                           JUDGMENT

The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the 4th

respondent to issue building permit to the petitioner for

construction of the building as shown in Ext.P9 series of

documents. The petitioner submits that he had a dispute

with the 4th respondent Panchayat on an allegation that he

is in possession of Purambokku land vested in the

Panchayat. It is stated that following Ext.P7 judgment, the

second respondent measured the property and on that basis

prepared Ext.P8, suggesting that there is excess land in the

possession of the petitioner. Though the petitioner submits

that he is aggrieved by Ext.P8 and wants to challenge the

same, still it is contended that the area covered by Ext.P9

and the application for building permit, is the area which is

undisputed and in his exclusive possession.

WP(c).No.262288/08 2

2. On behalf of the 4th respondent Panchayat, it is now

submitted that following Ext.P7 judgment, measurement

was conducted without putting the Panchayat on notice and

that the Panchayat is also equally aggrieved by Ext.P8. Now

that both parties are aggrieved by Ext.P8, I do not think it

safe to direct consideration of the petitioner’s application

based on Ext.P8. In my view, the most appropriate course

would be to direct that the a fresh measurement be

conducted by the second respondent with notice to both

the petitioner and the 4th respondent. On the basis of the

plan so prepared, it will be for the Panchayat to consider

Ext.P9 series of document.

Accordingly, it is directed that the second respondent

shall survey the land as expeditiously as possible and at

any rate within 3 weeks from the date of production of a

copy of the judgment and on receipt of the plan and report

the Panchayat shall consider Ext.P9 and the application

submitted by the petitioner without any further delay.

WP(c).No.262288/08 3

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE

vi.

WP(c).No.262288/08 4