IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 14725 of 2006(C)
1. ENTHEENKUTTY, S/O. ALAVIKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE PARAPPUR GRAMA PANCHAYAT
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
4. IBRAHIM, SON OF ABU,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.M.JOSEPH
Dated :03/07/2007
O R D E R
K.M.JOSEPH, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C).No.14725 OF 2006
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2007
JUDGMENT
Petitioner has approached this court feeling aggrieved by
Exts.P1, P2 and P7. He seeks a direction to the first respondent
to cause an enquiry into the circumstances under which his office
caused to issue Ext.P2 communication.
Case of the petitioner in brief is as follows:
Petitioner commenced the construction of the building on
01/01/2005. On 29/09/2005 by Ext.P1 Panchayat issued stop
memo alleging violation of Section 220(b) of the Panchayat Raj
Act. By Ext.P2 the District Collector issued direction to the
Panchayat and also the police to prevent the construction of the
building by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the
alleged complainant before the District Collector expressed the
view that he has not filed any complaint ( Ext.P3.). By resolution
dated 01/02/2006 the Panchayat resolved that Section 220(b) of
the Panchayat Raj Act need not be insisted for the constructions
WPC No.14725/06 2
on the sides of the roads vested in the Panchayat. Fourth
respondent filed Ext.P5 to stop the construction. Fourth
respondent approached this court and this court directed
consideration of Ext.P5 by the Panchayat. By Ext.P7 petitioner
was directed not to continue the construction of the building.
2. Counter affidavit is filed by second respondent-
Panchayat. In the counter affidavit it is interalia stated that the
statement of the petitioner that the road that passes through the
side of the property where the petitioner is constructing the
building is only a pathway and not a Panchayat road is absolutely
incorrect. It is stated to be a Panchayat road known as
Kuttithara-Anganwadi Road. It is stated that Panchayat had as
early as on 06/01/1997 adopted a resolution to the effect that
only after leaving 2 meters distance from the Road that the
buildings can be constructed ( Ext.R2 a). Further it is stated that
petitioner has commenced the construction of the building much
before the resolution of the Panchayat adopted on 01/02/2006.
It is stated that petitioner has not left any distance from the
Panchayat road.
3. Petitioner has filed reply affidavit producing Ext.P8
WPC No.14725/06 3
circular, as per which according to the petitioner Panchayat shall
notify the roads and inform the public of the same. It is stated
that Panchayat has to maintain a ” Road List” for application of
Section 220(b). It is stated that R2(a) is not in compliance with
Ext.P8.
4. Petitioner has a case that it is not a Panchayat road as
notified by the Panchayat ( para 2). Petitioner relies on the
judgment reported in Thomas Paul and another v. State of
Kerala and others ( 2006(4) ILR Kerala 690). It is submitted
that construction is already over and direction is sought to assign
building number to the shop room constructed by the petitioner.
The writ petition is disposed of as follows:
Second respondent will hear the petitioner and the fourth
respondent and take a decision in accordance with law on the
question as to whether the construction of the building of the
petitioner is to be numbered under Section 235 of the Panchayat
Raj Act. If the construction made by the petitioner attracts
section 220(b) and if the petitioner has violated Section 220(b),
it is open to the second respondent to proceed against the said
construction so that illegality is removed. In doing so, the
WPC No.14725/06 4
second respondent will consider the question as to whether the
building construction is by the side of a road which attracts
Section 220(b). Petitioner will be entitled to rely on the
judgment of this court in 2006(4) ILR Kerala 690. A decision will
be taken in the matter within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE)
sv.
WPC No.14725/06 5