IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2008 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 35319 of 2007(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.K.AYSHABI, W/O.HUSSAIN HAJI, NEAR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, THAYATHERU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.V.SOHAN SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. TALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. JAMES MANNUR, S/O.JOSEPH, ENGINEER, P.O.VELLAD, NADUVIL DESOM, PIN: 670 571, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. MANDYAN SURESH KUMAR, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, BUSINESS, MADAI P.O., PIN: 670 358, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. PUTHIYEDATH RAJAN BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.V.NARAYANAN, S/O.NARAYANI AMMA, CONTRACTOR, P.O.EZHOM, NARIKKODE DESOM, PIN: 670 571, KANNUR DISTRICT. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH SRI.V.A.SATHEESH -- R2 AND R3 SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2008 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 6183 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. ----------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)Nos. 35319 OF 2007 & 6183 of 2008 ----------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March, 2008 J U D G M E N T Since the subject matter in both these writ petition is the same they are being disposed of by this common judgment. The issue is whether the constructions which are taken out by the petitioners in WP (C).6183/08 in their property are lawful and in conformity with the Municipality Building Rules. In the wake of the objections raised by the petitioner an interim order was passed on 30-11-2007 in WP(C). 35319/07 directing the Secretary of the Municipality to conduct immediate local inspection of the constructions with notice to all the parties. It was also stated in the interim order that if the inspection reveals that statutory rules are being violated,a the Municipality will issue stop memo against petitioners in WP(C). No. 6183/08. I am informed that pursuant to that interim order an inspection was conducted. It appears that the said inspection revealed that there was some violation of the rules. Thereafter the petitioners in WP(C). 6183/09 got the property measured by the Village Officer who gave a sketch to those petitioners. In the light of the measurement the petitioners in WP(C).6183/08 submitted a revised plan before the Secretary of the Municipality along with the sketch given to them by WP(C)N0.3519/07 & 6183/08 -2- the Village Officer. Thereafter the building inspector attached to the municipality inspected the property again with reference to the revised plan and sketch which had been produced along with the same. In such inspection the building inspector was convinced that the construction strictly in accordance with the revised plan will not be violative of the building rules assuming that the sketch issued by the Village Officer is a correct one. The constructions, it is agreed by both sides are at an advanced stage. A civil suit is pending before the local civil court. Sri.K.V.Sohan, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C). 35319/07 submitted that the measurement conducted by the Village Officer was not a proper measurement and the correct method for resolving the controversy is to direct a fresh measurement by the Taluk Surveyor with notice to all the parties and the Municipality can be directed to rely on such a measurement before issuing permit, May be in that I do not find any merit in the submission of Mr.Sohan. But the issue is already pending before the civil court and I am sure that it is necessary that the civil court will facilitate measurement of the properties by the Taluk Surveyor or any other competent officer, but to insist that the construction work should be held by till such time as the Taluk Surveyor conducts the measurement may not be very fair WP(C)N0.3519/07 & 6183/08 -3- since the construction is at an advanced stage and the cost of construction materials are also high. Under these circumstances in view of the finding of the building inspector attached to the Municipality that the revised plan does not violate the building rules I am inclined to direct the Municipality to grant permit to the petitioner in WP(C). No. 6183/08 on the basis of the revised plan subject to the final outcome of the civil suit which is pending. Directions are accordingly issued to the Thaliparambu Municipality. But the petitioner in WP(C). 6183/08 is reminded that if the civil court on fixation of correct boundary between the two properties found that the construction permitted by the Municipality (even if the same is pursuant to the direction given by this court) violates the Building Rules on the basis of the boundary fixed by the civil court they will be liable even to demolish the portions of constructions to the extent they are found to be illegal without raising any demand and at their own costs. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) ksv/-