IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SA.No. 740 of 1997()
1. VALLUVA PUTHAN VEETTIL PRASANNA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ARAYAKANDI NARAYANI
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SMT.SANGEETHA S.KAMATH
For Respondent :SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.BHAVADASAN
Dated :16/07/2010
O R D E R
P.BHAVADASAN, J.
---------------------------------------
S.A. No.740 OF 1997
----------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Dispute in this case relates to the construction of a
latrine. The 1st defendant in O.S.No.145 of 1994 before the
Munsiff’s Court, Kannur is the appellant herein. The
grievance of the plaintiff in the suit is that a latrine is being
constructed by the 1st defendant within 15 metres of the well
of the plaintiff. Therefore possibility of causing water
pollution in the well is imminent. Even though plaintiff had
moved the authorities concerned, she could not get any
relief. Therefore she approached this Court.
2. It is an admitted case of the 1st defendant
constructing a latrine within a distance of 11.5 metres from
the well of the plaintiff. According to the 1st defendant
construction done was after obtaining a permit from the
Panchayath and also the nature of latrine constructed is
such that there is no possibility of any leakage or pollution of
water in the well.
S.A. No.740 OF 1997 2
3. The court below raised necessary issues for
consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of
PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked from the side of the
plaintiff. On the side of defendant, DW1 was examined and
Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. Ext.C1 to C4 Commissioner’s
report and plans were marked.
4. The trial court found that construction of latrine
being done in violation of the permission and licence
granted by Panchayath and also Rule 31(7) (i) of the Kerala
Building Rules 1984 and decreed the suit prohibiting the 1st
defendant from constructing a latrine within 15 metres of
the well. Aggrieved by the decree the defendant carried the
matter in appeal. The appellate court on consideration of all
the relevant facts found that the findings of the trial court
was perfectly justified. The District Court found apart from
taking statutory violation, permission was granted by the
Panchayath imposing a condition, which the defendant is
bound to comply but had violated. Accordingly the appeal
was dismissed.
S.A. No.740 OF 1997 3
5. I find no grounds to interfere at all. In the order
granting licence and permission it was stipulated that latrine
shall be put up only 15 metres away from the nearest well.
Of course there is a case for the defendant/appellant that
construction of the well began after the construction of the
latrine had commenced. Both the courts below found
otherwise. It is concurrently found that construction of well
began earlier. The defendant is bound to comply with the
statutory provisions as well as the conditions stipulated in
the permit as rightly held by court belows.
No grounds are made out to interfere the judgment and
decree of the court below. This appeal is without merits
and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to
costs.
P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE.
mns