N.A.Muhammed vs Vengola Grama Panchayat Rep. By on 27 January, 2009

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 35604 of 2008(L)


1. N.A.MUHAMMED, S/O.ABOOBACKER
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. VENGOLA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP. BY
                       ...       Respondent

2. ELIAMMA, W/O.GEORGE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :27/01/2009

 O R D E R
                        S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                ------------------------------------
                  W.P.(C)No.35604 OF 2008
              ----------------------------------------
              Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009

                           JUDGMENT

The petitioner filed this writ petition complaining of illegal

construction of a pig farm by the 2nd respondent in a property

adjacent to the petitioner’s property. The learned Counsel for the

1st respondent – Panchayat submitted before me that the

Panchayat has already issued a stop memo to the 2nd respondent.

In the above circumstances, I passed an interim order on

11.12.2008 to the effect that the 1st respondent – Panchayat

shall enforce the stop memo, if necessary, with police aid.

2. The 2nd respondent with the help of a counter affidavit

disputes the contentions of the petitioner that the construction is

unauthorised. But she does not dispute that the Panchayat has

issued a stop memo.

3. I am not inclined to consider the contentions of the

2nd respondent in this writ petition, in so far as the 2nd respondent

has not challenged the stop memo, which is produced as

W.P.(c) No.35604/08 2

Ext.R2(c). After issuing the stop memo, the Panchayat is duty

bound to see that the same is duly enforced. If the 2nd

respondent is aggrieved by the stop memo, it is for the 2nd

respondent to challenge that stop memo appropriately. In fact

the 2nd respondent has already filed Ext.R2(d) objections to the

stop memo which she can pursue in accordance with law.

Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the 2nd respondent

to challenge that stop memo, this writ petition is disposed of in

terms of the interim order dated 11.12.2008. I make it clear

that if the 2nd respondent succeeds in her challenge against the

stop memo, it would be open to the 2nd respondent to continue

construction.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd

W.P.(c) No.35604/08 3