IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34144 of 2007(M)
1. SUKUMARAN, KADAYIL VEEDU
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SREEKARYAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH
... Respondent
2. C.BABY, KALLARA HOUSE, CHENNILODE
3. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL
4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
For Petitioner :SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :11/01/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).34144/2007
--------------------
Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010
JUDGMENT
1. According to the petitioner, he owns 10 cents of land in
Survey No.1702/2 of Pangappara Villae which he acquired by
sale deed No.533/88. It is stated that the 2nd respondent
trespassed into his land and was constructing a building. He
moved the Civil Court and the writ petition was dismissed.
The appeal filed was also dismissed. Thereafter, he filed
R.S.A.No.923/2004 before this Court which is stated to be
pending. Petitioner states that, on his complaint the
Panchayat has stopped construction at the instance of the 2nd
respondent, by issuing Exts.P3 and P4 and that ignoring
Exts.P3 and P4, construction work was going on. It is in these
circumstances, he filed this writ petition mainly complaining
against the continued construction at the instance of the 2nd
respondent in spite of Exts.P3 and P4.
2. According to the 2nd respondent, property has been in
the possession of his family since the days of his father. It is
stated that there is already a building and that he only
W.P.(C).34144/07
2
attempted to repair the building. It is also his case that he
applied for a building permit and that on account of the
failure of the 1st respondent, a deemed building permit has
accrued in his favour.
3. After the writ petition was filed, taking note of the
allegations made by the petitioner, this Court passed an
interim order dated 16.7.2009 directing the 4th respondent to
inspect the land and file a report, as to whether any
construction activity was still going on. Accordingly, affidavit
dated 23.7.2009 has been filed reporting that on inspection,
he did not notice any construction activity going on.
4. As already stated, the complaint of the petitioner is that
in spite of Exts.P3 and P4, construction activity at the
instance of the 2nd respondent is going on, ignoring the
aforesaid orders. If these orders are in force, necessarily the
1st respondent is bound to implement the orders and the 2nd
respondent is bound to comply with the same. Therefore so
long as Exts.P3 and P4 are in force, 2nd respondent cannot
continue the work.
W.P.(C).34144/07
3
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of
directing respondents 1 and 4 to ensure that Exts.P3 and P4
are complied with by the 2nd respondent, so long as the said
orders are in force.
6. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before
respondents 1 and 4 for compliance.
ANTONY DOMINIC,
Judge
mrcs