IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 37992 of 2010(Y)
1. CHACKO,S/O.ULAHANNAN,POTTACKAL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE
... Respondent
2. MARADY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,REP.BY ITS
3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
For Petitioner :SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :21/12/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 37992 OF 2010
=====================
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P9 notice.
2. According to the petitioner, in respect of his son’s
property covered by Ext.P1, after obtaining a building permit,
when construction was commenced, Ext.P9 notice has been
issued by the 1st respondent invoking his powers under Act 28 of
2008, which inter alia orders demolition of the work already done
and requiring the petitioner to restore the land into its old
position. Although proceedings have been initiated against the
petitioner, as at present, such proceedings under Act 28 of 2008
have not been completed by the 1st respondent.
3. Therefore, at this stage, what is required is that the 1st
respondent should complete the proceedings after hearing the
petitioner. Necessarily therefore, till such orders are passed, the
directions in Ext.P9 notice requiring the second respondent to
demolish the existing structures and requiring the petitioner’s son
to restore the land in its old position cannot be implemented.
4. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of directing the
WPC No. 37992/10
:2 :
1st respondent to complete the proceedings under Act 28 of 2008
with notice either to the petitioner or his son. This shall be done,
as expeditiously as possible and until then, directions 2 and 3 in
Ext.P9 shall not be implemented.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with a
copy of this writ petition before respondents 1 and 2 for
compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp