IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 34512 of 2007(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.N.SAKEENATH, W/O.O.P.ABDUL NAZAR, AGED 32 YEARS, PUTHEN PEEDIYEKKAL HOUSE, THRIPANACHI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1.THE PULAPATTA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PULPATTA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. *ADDL.R2.THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, MALAPPURAM. *ADDL.R2 IS IMPLEADED SUO MOTU AS PER THE ORDER DATED 25.1.2008. R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.34512 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 5th February, 2008 JUDGMENT The grievance of the petitioner is that a commercial building constructed by him by the side of the Manjeri-Kizhissery road is not being numbered by the Panchayat. The Assistant Executive Engineer, P.W.D.Roads Division, Malappuram was suo motu impleaded as additional 2nd respondent in the Writ Petition and the additional second respondent has issued a certificate to the Panchayat wherein it is certified that the road in question is a major district road. It cannot be in dispute that any construction by the side of a major district road has to comply with the distance rule in Section 220(b) of the Panchayat Raj Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw my attention to Section 235 and also to the entry corresponding to Section 220(b) in the 6th Schedule to the Panchayat Raj Act and submit that it is obligatory that all the buildings constructed within the limits of the Panchayat irrespective of whether the construction is legal or not are to be numbered by the Panchayat. I am unable to accept the above argument. Counsel asserts that the construction made by the petitioner does not offend the 3 metre distance rule. He relies on Ext.P2 sketch. According to the counsel for the Panchayat, Ext.P2 will not come to the petitioner's rescue. Counsel for the W.P.C.No.34512/07 - 2 - petitioner would submit that after submission of Ext.P2, the petitioner has demolished some portions of the building so that the remaining construction will conform to Section 220(b). Counsel for the Panchayat does not agree. For resolving the dispute, I am of the view that measurement of the constructions made by the petitioner is essential. I direct the additional second respondent to measure the constructions made by the petitioner on the side of Manjeri- Kizhissery road with notice to the petitioner as well as the Secretary of the Panchayat. After conducting measurement as directed above, a sketch will be prepared by the additional 2nd respondent wherein he will mark the distance of 3 metres from the boundary of the petitioner's property. A copy of the sketch will be given by the additional second respondent to the petitioner and the Panchayat and the Panchayat will take a final decision on the question of assignment of door number to the petitioner's building on the basis of the sketch to be furnished by the additional 2nd respondent. Needful will be done by the additional 2nd respondent at the earliest and at any rate within three weeks of receiving copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE W.P.C.No.34512/07 - 3 -