IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 16290 of 2007(L) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ OMANA CHANDRAN, D/O.ITTIATHI KUMARAN, AGED 37 YEARS, VELLAPPILLY HOUSE, PAINGOTTOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, PAINGOTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PAINGOTTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DT. 2. THE PAINGOTTOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PAINGOTTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM DT. 3. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MUVATTUPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN BY ADV.SRI.MANU GOVIND, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.16290/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DATED 30/1/2006. P2 COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 18/5/2007 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. P3 COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 12/2/2007 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P4 COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER DATED 6/3/2007. P5 COPY OF THE FINAL BENEFICIARIES LIST FOR 2006-07. P6 COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE BUILDING MATERIALS UNLOADED. P7 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 21/3/2007 BY THE PANCHAYAT. P8 COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM IN MATHRUBHOOMI DATED 23/5/07. P9 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 22/5/07 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1(A) COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER FORM WHICH THE ALLOTTEES ARE TO SUBMIT BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT DATED NIL. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.16290 OF 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner contends as follows: The petitioner applied for financial assistance from the 2nd respondent Panchayat under a House Construction Scheme of the Panchayat for Scheduled Caste Community. The Panchayat sanctioned an initial amount of Rs.20,000/- for construction of the house, with which the petitioner purchased building materials, unloaded the same in the property and started construction. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with Ext.P7 directing the petitioner to stop construction. The balance amount under the Scheme has also not been disbursed to the petitioner. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing Exhibit P7 communication issued by the first respondent as the same is illegal. ii) Issue a writ of prohibition restraining the first and second respondents from interfering with the lawful construction activities carried out by the petitioner as per the house construction scheme for W.P.(C)No.16290/07 2 Scheduled Cast (sic) community with immediate effect. iii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Exhibit P9 representation within a stipulated time period”. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the Panchayat, wherein it is stated that the plot in which the petitioner proposed to construct the house was not allotted to the petitioner. The beneficiaries of the Scheme were selected by a house site committee of the Panchayat under the 'Rajeev Gandhi Desha Lakhsham Bhavana Padhathi' of 1997-1998. The plot in which the petitioner proposed to make construction was allotted to one Sri. Krishnankutty. As per the Scheme, house sites so allotted are heritable but not alienable. The allottees were required to execute a consent letter for the purpose of allotment, in which it is specifically undertaken by the allottee that the house site allotted shall not be alienated under any circumstances and if the allottee does not require the site, it shall be surrendered to the Panchayat. It is submitted in the counter affidavit that the said Sri. Krishnankutty alienated the three cent plot allotted him, to the petitioner against the provisions of the Scheme and the W.P.(C)No.16290/07 3 undertaking submitted by him. When the petitioner started construction in the property the neighbouring allottees objected to the same and it is as a result of the same, the Panchayat came to know about the illegality. On knowing about the illegality, the petitioner was directed to stop the construction, is the contention raised. It is also submitted therein that the petitioner's father was earlier allotted a house site under the One Lakh Housing Scheme of the Panchayat and he sold it off for a paltry amount. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. Obviously, the house plot was not allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner herself has produced Ext.P4, whereby Sri. Krishnankutty had executed a consent deed for enabling the petitioner to construct a house in the plot allotted to the said Sri.Krishnankutty. In fact, the petitioner has not chosen to file any reply to the counter affidavit also. From the above facts, it is abundantly clear that the transfer of the plot in favour of the petitioner by Sri.Krishnankutty was against the provisions of the Scheme. That being so, there is nothing wrong in the action taken by the Panchayat to cancel the W.P.(C)No.16290/07 4 benefits given to the petitioner under the Scheme. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE acd W.P.(C)No.16290/07 5