IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 6567 of 2008(F)
1. SHIBU MATHEW, S/O.MATHUKUTTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.V.THOMASKUTTY, PUTHUSSERIL VEEDU,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY,
3. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
For Petitioner :SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR)
For Respondent :SRI.V.K.SUNIL
The Hon'ble MR. Justice PIUS C.KURIAKOSE
Dated :27/02/2008
O R D E R
PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J.
-------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 6567 of 2008
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 27th day of February, 2008
J U D G M E N T
As directed by me, Shri.V.K.Sunil, learned standing counsel
for the Municipality has taken notice. I have heard the submissions
of Shri.T.Krishnanunni, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and
those of Shri.V.K.Sunil and learned Government Pleader.
2. Ext.P1 revenue extract will clearly show that even from
very ancient times, the properties upon which the petitioner wants
to construct the building are classified as dry lands. The insistance
of the 3rd respondent on the complaint of the 1st respondent that the
petitioner should obtain permit under the Land Utilisation Order for
putting up construction is totally unjustified. In my opinion, the 3rd
respondent has not justified in restraining the petitioner from
carrying on with the constructions on the strength of a permit which
has been duly issued to him by the local authority. Since Ext.P3 is
only an interim order, I do not propose to quash the same straight
away. At the same time I dispose of the writ petition permitting the
petitioner to continue with the constructions since Ext.P1 clearly
shows that the petitioner’s property is actually dry land. The
petitioner is informed that the construction put up by him in the
WP(C) No. 6567/2008
-2-
light of this judgment will be subject to the final out come of the
proceedings before the 3rd respondent.
(PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE)
jg