IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 23RD OCTOBER 2008 / 1ST KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30341 of 2008(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- LIAKATHALIKHAN P. PALAKKAL HOUSE, KALLADICODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KANJIRAPUZHA IRRIGATION PROJECT (SUB DIVISION), KALLADIKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE CITU HEADLOAD WOKRERS' UNION (CITU) KALLDICODE DEEPA UNIT - REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KALLADIKODE (P.O), PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ FOR R2 SRI.A.V.RAVI FOR R2 GP SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).30341/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner constructed a shopping complex in Kalladikode Deepa Junction, Karimba Grama Panchayath in Mannarkkad Taluk. Numbers have been assigned to the building. Building is situated on the eastern side of the Palakkad-Mannarkkad National Highway. It is alleged that the second respondent constructed a thatched shed unauthorizedly in the land acquired by the first respondent. Therefore, petitioner filed Ext.P3 representation before the first respondent for removal of the same. As per Ext.P6 order, which was passed without hearing the petitioner, the first respondent found that the construction is of a temporary nature and it is a resting place for loading and unloading workers. Therefore, he granted them six months' time from the date of the order to dismantle and remove it. Petitioner again approached the authorities concerned and later as per Ext.P10 order, after hearing both W.P.(C).30341/2008 2 sides, first respondent affirmed the direction for removal of the unauthorized structure. But taking note of the fact that it is a temporary shed, he granted time till 30.1.2009. Same has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. I heard Mr.Mohanakannan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.P.N.Santhosh, learned Government Pleader and Mr.Reghuraj, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 3. The photographs Ext.P11, does not reflect the correct position as regards the lie of the properties, contends the counsel for the second respondent. He produces another set of photographs taken from a difference angle, which does not reveal the kind of obstruction that is projected as per Ext.P11. Obviously, it is not for this Court to assess the nature of the obstruction or the acceptability of the photographs. There is already an order by the first respondent directing the construction to be removed holding the W.P.(C).30341/2008 3 same as unauthorized. All that has been granted is time and not an unreasonable time to remove the unauthorized construction. But having said so, I should also make it clear that there will be no justification in not removing the unauthorized construction, or permitting the same to remain in the spot beyond 30.1.2009. Learned Government Pleader affirms the correctness of Ext.P10 order of the first respondent. 4. In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to take all steps to see that Ext.P10 is enforced strictly and see that the construction put up by the second respondent is removed by 30.1.2009. At any rate, it should not be permitted to be retained beyond 30.1.2009. Subject to the above, writ petition is disposed of. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs