IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2011 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 2636 of 2011(D) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- 1. RADHA,AGED 44 YRS,D/O.JANARDHANAN POTTI, JAYA NIVAS, THANNEERMUKKOM NORTH VILLAGE, MARUTHORVATTOM PO, CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. NOW RESIDING AT KALARICKAL MADOM,MANAKAPPADY- EROOR ROAD, IRUMPANAM P.O.,TRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. JAYALAKSHMI,D/O.JANARDHANAN POTTI,JAYA NIVAS,THANNEERMUKKOM NORTH VILLAGE, MARUTHOORVATTOM -PO,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DT.REP.BY HER P/A RADHA, AGED 44 YRS.,D/O.JANARDHANAN POTTI, DO. DO.DO.NOW R/AT KALARICKAL MADOM,MANAKAPPADY-EROOR ROAD,IRUMPANAM PO,THRIPUNITHURA,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.K.RAMANATHAN SMT.A.R.JAYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THANNEERMUKKOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THANNEERMUKKOM NORTH VILLAGE, CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-688527. 2. THE SECRETARY, THANNEERMUKKOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, THANNEERMUKKOM, CHERTHALA - 688 527. 3. P.M.AMBIKA, PROPRIETRIX, AVINASH TEXTILES, POTTIKKAVALA, MARUTHORVATTOM PO, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 545. R1 BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOBY CYRIAC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.2636 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of March, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners' father had effected construction of a building in property comprised in Re.Sy.No.151/10/1 in Thanneermukkom North Village. The contention of the petitioners is that the building in question was constructed in violation of Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act (for short 'the Act'). According to the petitioners, they are prepared to demolish the said construction to avoid prosecution proceedings. According to the third respondent, the person who is presently occupying the building in question, it is not liable to be demolished and she is entitled to continue with its possession. Be that as it may, evidently, the petitioners have already approached the second respondent as per Ext.P5. As per the same, they sought permission of the panchayath to demolish the construction of the building in question. The learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the second respondent may be directed to consider the claims and contentions of the third respondent before passing orders on Ext.P5. The learned W.P.(C) NO.2636/2011 2 counsel further submitted that already the third respondent has filed an objection before the second respondent as per Ext.R3(2). Essentially, the question to be resolved is whether the construction in question is liable to be demolished or not. In the said circumstances, without making any observations as to the merits of the contentions raised in this Writ Petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to take up Ext.P5 and Ext. R3(2) and consider the issue involved therein, in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as also the third respondent. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.2636/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.2636/2011 4