IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WA.No. 187 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.35854/2009 Dated 07/01/2010 .................... APPELLANT(S): 5TH RESPONDENT: ----------------------------- ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.MOHAMMED, NADAKASSERI PUTHUVAKKAL, CHELAMBRA PULLIPARAMBA POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH SMT.M.MANJU SRI.K.R.RANJITH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 --------------------------------------------- 1. A.V.MAMMAD, S/O.KAMMUTTY HAJI, APPATT VADAKKEKARA, PULLIPARAMBA POST, CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETRARIT, THIRUVNANATHAPURAM. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TIRURANGADI TALUK, TIRURANGADI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE OFRFICER, CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 5. HELEMBRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PO.CHELEMBRA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-673 634. BY SENIOR GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS FOR R2 TO R4 ADV.SRI.E.NARAYANAN FOR R5 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------ W.A.No.187/2010 ------------------------------ Dated this, the 3rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The 5th respondent in the Writ Petition is the appellant. The 1st respondent herein was the writ petitioner. The 1st respondent claims ownership over a plot of land having an extent of 3.75 cents in Re.Sy.No.98/16 of Tirurangadi Taluk. He got it under Ext.P1 partition deed. In order to construct a building there, he applied for building permit to the 5th respondent Panchayat. The Panchayat rejected that application by Ext.P9 communication, on the ground that the appellant and others have filed O.S.No.191/2009 before the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi, claiming title over the said property. But, the application for injunction filed by the plaintiffs therein was dismissed. There is no interim order in the C.M.A filed by the appellant against the said order, before the District Court. Ext.P9 was issued, taking note of the pendency of the suit. WA No.187/2010 - 2 - Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P9, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned Single Judge noted that mere pendency of a suit concerning the title of the property cannot be a ground to deny the permit. In that view of the matter, Ext.P9 communication issued by the Secretary of the Panchayat was quashed by the learned Judge. The Panchayat was also directed to consider the application made by the 1st respondent/writ petitioner with notice to the appellant. Challenging the said direction, the Writ Appeal is filed. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. We think, the 1st respondent cannot be asked to wait till the civil proceedings initiated by the appellant are finally disposed of. If he so thinks, the 1st respondent may proceed with the construction at his risk. The Panchayat is not supposed to go into the said dispute. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the decision of the learned Single Judge. But, the direction in this judgment or in the judgment under appeal will not affect the contentions or rights of the appellant. In other words, the civil court shall WA No.187/2010 - 3 - decide the suit or consider grant of interim relief, uninfluenced by the observations in this judgment or in the judgment under appeal. Subject to the above observation, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. nm.