IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2009 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 23498 of 2009(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- PONNAMMA GEORGE, PALLATHARAYIL, NADUVILE MURI, NOORANADU VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. MR.M.V.THAMBAN, MR.R.REJI, MR.B.BIPIN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. NOORANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NOORANADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, NOORANADU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NOORANADU, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.N.UNNIKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.23498/2009-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER DATED 24/12/2005 OF NOORNADU VILLAGE. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PETITIONER'S SON LYING IN RE-SURVEY NO. 211/24/2. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE LAWYERS NOTICE. RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE R2.A: COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE BUILDING, LOCATION AND SITE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, L.S.G.D., NOORNAD. ANNEXURE R2.B: COPY OF THE REPLY NOTICE DTD. 21/08/2009 SENT BY R.2. ANNEXURE R2.C: COPY OF THE REPORT NO. 325/08 DTD. 10/10/2008 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER, NOORNADU VILLAGE. ANNEXURE R2.D: COPY OF THE REPORT NO. 312/09 DTD. 19/08/2009 AND LOCATION SKETCH OF PROPERTY OF THE PANCHAYATH IN RE-SY.NO.210/14. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C).No.23498 of 2009-F = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner moved this Court against a notice to stop construction activities because, the statute prohibits her from moving the civil court without issuing prior notice to the panchayat. An interim order was issued by this Court at the stage of admission on 17.8.2009. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has moved the civil court and the writ petition may be permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to prosecute the civil suit. Learned counsel for the panchayat states that the writ petitioner has suppressed facts and there is no question of her being deprived of light or air and that she has no title to the property. This conflict of contentions itself shows that the matter requires adjudication by WPC23498/09/09 -: 2 :- competent court. Under such circumstances, this writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn preserving all rights and reliefs, however that, the construction would be provisional and subject to be pulled down, if so ordered by the competent court trying the suit. If the construction is found to be in violation of law, those who were responsible for such construction would show cause to that court as to why they should not have been mulcted with liability for the amounts being spent by the panchayat for construction. This is the effect of the order issued by this Court on 17.8.2009. This position notwithstanding, it will be permissible for the competent court to consider interlocutory relief even to order stopping the construction. These directions are issued without prejudice to the competent civil court considering any application for temporary injunction. THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/2311