IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 19477 of 2008(R) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ ACHUMNTAKATH AFSATH, D/O. MAMMADKUNHI, AGED 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADAYI AMSOM, PUTHIYANGADI DESOM, P.O. MADAYI, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.VIDHYA. A.C SRI.A.C.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, MADAYIL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, P.O. PAZHAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, P.O. PAZHAYANGADI, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. KOOLOTH VALAPPIL LAKSHMI, D/O. MANIKKAM, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT MADAYI AMSOM, PUTHIYANGADI DESOM, WARD NO.7 IN MADAYI, PANCHAYAT, KANNUR DIST. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR ADV. SRI.E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI -R3 SRI.M.SASINDRAN - R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).19477/2008-R APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 31/03/1993 IN O.S. NO.47 OF 1990 OF MUNSIFF COURT TALIPARAMBA. EXT.P2: COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 12/03/1997 IN A.S. NO.66 OF 93 OF SUB COURT, PAYYANUR. EXT.P3: COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 10/07/2007 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, MADAYI GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.P5: COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 05/02/2008 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: COPY OF LETTER NO.A3/420/08 DATED 06/02/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 16/06/08 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: COPY OF LETTER NO.A3/1677/08 DATED 16/06/2008 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TOT HE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9: COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 05/02/2008 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL // TRUE COPY // Rs/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) 19477 of 2008 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated: JULY 15, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner contends that by Exts.P1 and P2 decree and judgment, they are entitled to 22 cents of land. According to the petitioner, against Ext.P9, the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent is pending consideration of the Appellate Court. 2. It is stated that the 3rd respondent made an attempt to obtain a building permit in respect of the land covered by the judgment and decree and that though the petitioner has objected to the grant of building permit, the 3rd respondent succeeded in obtaining the permit. According to the petitioner, on the strength of Ext.P4 permit, the 3rd respondent started construction of a building trespassing into a portion of their property and thereupon Ext.P5 complaint was made before the 1st respondent. 3. On receipt of Ext.P5, it is submitted by the petitioner, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P6 order requiring the 3rd respondent to stop further construction. However, disobeying Ext.P6, the 3rd respondent continued the construction. In view WP(C) 19477/08 2 of this, further complaints were made and that resulted in Ext.P8, yet another order, requiring the 3rd respondent to stop the construction forthwith. Subsequent to Exts.P6 and P8 petitioner filed this writ petition complaining that in spite of the aforesaid two orders issued by the Panchayat, the 3rd respondent was continuing construction and that the Panchayat is not taking any effective action for preventing further construction. 4. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent Panchayat submits that on receipt of the complaints from the petitioner Ext.P6 order was issued. Even thereafter complaint was again received complaining of continued construction. It is stated that thereafter Ext.P8 order was also issued. It is reiterated before me that Exts.P6 and P8 orders are still in force and the 3rd respondent cannot continue construction any more. 5. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent on the other hand submits that he is entitled to continue construction as the land in question belongs to her. In this proceedings the complaint of the petitioner is regarding disobedience of Exts.P6 and P8 and this court is not expected to enquire into the claim of title raised by the 3rd respondent and that is a matter to be WP(C) 19477/08 3 settled by the Appellate Court. The fact remains that even as on date, Exts.P6 and P8 orders issued by the Panchayat are still remaining in force. If that be so, the 3rd respondent has to obey the same and as at present, he cannot continue the construction any more. Therefore directing that the Panchayat will ensure compliance of Exts.P6 and P8 orders, this writ petition is disposed of. It is clarified that it will be open to the 3rd respondent to seek variation of Exts.P6 and P8, if she is so advised, in which case the Panchayat will consider the same with notice to the petitioner also. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE mt/-