IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 9116 of 2011(L) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------------- LEELAMMA VARGHESE, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.VARGHESE THOMAS, MULLACKAL, KEEZHVAIPUR, MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE,MALLAPPALLY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.SANTHOSH BABU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PATHANAMTHITTA – 689 645. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, MALLAPPALLY TALUK, MALLAPPALLY-689 585. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER,MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, MALLAPPALLY-689 585. 4. THE SECRETARY, MALLAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALLAPPALLY WEST.P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN-689 585. R1 TO R3 BY ADV.SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL, GOVT. PLEADER R4 BY ADVS.SRI. SIBY MATHEW, SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU SRI.B.PREMNATH (E) THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DG WP(C).No. 9116 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 10-09-2008 ISSUED BY VILLAGE OFFICER MALLAPPALLY. EXT.P2 : COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DATED 24.05.2010 EXT.P3 : COPY OF ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 26.11.2009 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4 : COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 15.02.2010. EXT.P5 : COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 26.03.2010 EXT.P6 : COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 15.11.2010 EXT.P7 : COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 01.03.2011 TO 4TH RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(e) : COPY OF THE PROJECT REPORT PREPARED BY THE PANCHAYATH REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TRACTOR RAMP. EXT.R4(f) : COPY OF ROUGH SKETCH OF PROPERTY SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE DG HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.9116 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 13th day of December, 2011. J U D G M E N T Writ petition is filed seeking a direction commanding the 4th respondent to number the petitioner's building situated in R.S.No.248/1/1 of Mallappally Village forthwith and to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 within a time frame. 2. The petitioner had constructed a residential building in the property comprised in R.S.No.248/1/1 in Mallappally Village owned by her. The petitioner submits that the construction of the residential building was completed in October, 2009 and she is residing in the building. It is pointed out that the 2nd respondent had assessed the Building Tax under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 and Ext.P3 is the order of assessment. The petitioner produced copy of the receipts issued for payment of Building Tax and receipts are marked as Exts.P4 & P4(a). On 11.6.2010, the petitioner submitted an application to the 4th respondent, Secretary of the Grama Panchayath, to number the newly constructed building. The petitioner produced Ext.P1 possession certificate produced by the petitioner in order to show that the property is 'purayidam' and not wet land. In Ext.P1 certificate issued by the Village Officer dated 10.9.2008 it is ::2:: W.P.(C).No.9116 Of 2011 certified that the petitioner's property is a dry land. It is submitted that the 4th respondent did not number the building stating that the nature of the property is a wet land. The petitioner further submits that the 4th respondent had directed the petitioner to file an application for regularisation of the construction of the building under the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules. The petitioner submitted Ext.R4(a) application for regularisation on 11.6.2010 and remitted requisite fee. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 1.3.2011 requesting to expedite the process of numbering the building. 3. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the averments in the writ petition. In the counter affidavit it is inter alia stated that there are paddy fields by the side of the petitioner's building, that the paddy fields are part of Paruthipalam Padasekharam situated in R.S.No.249 and that paddy cultivation was being carried out in the above paddy fields. It is also stated that for the purpose of taking tractor to the padasekharam, the Panchayath had constructed a ramp from the road to the paddy fields with the permission of the petitioner ::3:: W.P.(C).No.9116 Of 2011 through her property spending Rs.40,000/-. It is pointed out that however, the petitioner, while constructing the building, constructed a part of the building over the ramp and hence the agriculturists of the area filed complaints before the 4th respondent on 20.5.2010 Ext.R4(c) is the copy of the complaint. On receipt of Ext.R4(c) complaint, the Panchayath conducted an enquiry and found that the petitioner had constructed the building over the ramp constructed by the Panchayath. It is further stated that the Panchayath conducted conciliation talk between the complainants and the petitioner. The petitioner had agreed to construct a ramp or in the alternative freely surrender land required for the construction of the ramp and it was based on the said agreement, the petitioner remitted the fee for regularisation and it was received by the 4th respondent. It is further stated that the petitioner had also produced necessary stamp paper for executing the agreement. Ext.R4(d) is the copy of the stamp paper produced before the Panchayath purchased by her on 12.11.2010. It is further stated that when the petitioner was directed to appear before the Panchayath for execution of the agreement, she withdrew her consent, therefore, ::4:: W.P.(C).No.9116 Of 2011 the grievances of the agriculturists of the area remained unsolved and that due to the illegal acts of the petitioner, the agriculturists in the area cannot take the tractors or harvesting machines to their paddy fields for cultivation. It is further averred that the Panchayath refused to number the building constructed by the petitioner unlawfully. 4. The facts averred in the writ petition are denied by the 4th respondent. In view of the rival contentions raised by the parties, this Court is not inclined to decide the writ petition on merits. Admittedly, Ext.P6 is pending consideration before the 4th respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is that the matter is not so far disposed of by the Secretary. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 4th respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P6 representation for regularisation of the construction of the petitioner, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and other affected parties, if any. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-