IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2009 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 OP.No. 12472 of 1999(I) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JABEEN L.ZACHARIAS, W/O. LALICHAN ZACHARIAS, KAKKAMTHOTTIL, JAYA NAGAR, MARADU, COCHIN. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA) RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, MARAVANTHURUTHUGRAMA PANCHAYATH, MARAVANTHURUTHU P.O., VAIKOM. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. *ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED. 4. BLOCK PANCHAYATH, VAIKOM REP.BY SECRETARY, *ADDL. R4 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 30.7.09 IN IA. 1746/2009. R1 BY ADVS. MR.K.MOHANAKANNAN , SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA. R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SUDHADEVI ADDL. R4 BY ADV.MR. ALEXANDER GEORGE THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.19999/1999 IN OP. NO.12472/1998 DISMISSED 03/12/2009 SD/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED NO.2572/96 OF VAIKOM SUB REGISTRY. P2:- COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE SAID PROPERTY FOR THE PERIOD 1996-97. P3:- COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE LIE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE VEMBANAD LAKE. P4:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 6.5.08. P5:- COPY OF THE SHOWING THE FIRE LIT IN THE HOUSE. P6:- COPY OF THE SHOWING AFTER THE VANDALIZING THE STATE OF THE BED ROOM. P7:- COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT. 25.8.08. P8:- PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE DUMPING OF GRAVEL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= O.P. No. 12472 of 1999 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd December, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a property by the side of the Vembanad lake in Maravanthuruthu Panchayat. At the time when the petitioner purchased the property, it was lying contiguous to the Vembanadu lake. The petitioner has filed this original petition challenging the action of the 1st respondent-Panchayat in reclaiming a portion of the lake in between the petitioner's property and the lake for construction of a fish processing unit. The petitioner alleges violation of the CRZ notification. 2. From the proceedings in this original petition, I find that a learned Judge of this Court had summoned the Circle Inspector of Police and the Panchayat in order to ascertain whether there is any construction as proposed. They appeared before this Court on 14-1- 2009. The learned Judge of this Court passed the following order on that day: “The Circle Inspector of Police, Vaikom and the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat are present. The Secretary has filed an affidavit indicating that no notice had been received by him. It is also stated in the affidavit that the Block Panchayat does not intend to make any construction in the disputed kayal area. The Circle Inspector of Police submits that appropriate prompt action is being taken to prevent the activities of anti social elements in the area. Counsel for the petitioner submits that there may be a direction to the Block Panchayat, Vaikom to remove the construction already made in respect of the project which was dropped by the Block Panchayat. But the Block Panchayat is not on the party array. Counsel seeks time for impleading the Block Panchayat.” Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A. 1746/2009 to implead the Block Panchayat who has been so impleaded. They appeared through counsel and sought time to file a counter affidavit. No counter affidavit has been filed so far. 3. The 1st respondent-Panchayat has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the 1st respondent-Panchayat has no proposal to make any construction in the area in question, but the Block Panchayat had intended to construct a fish landing center, which construction was started, pursuant to which only the original petition has been filed. But, due to some problems which arose, that construction has been stopped. In any event, it is categorically stated before me that the 1st respondent-Panchayat has no intention to make any construction in the property in question. 4. Despite giving sufficient time to file counter affidavit, the additional 4th respondent-Block Panchayat has not chosen to file a counter affidavit. As such, the allegation of the petitioner regarding violation of the CRZ notification stands uncontroverted. In fact, a learned Judge of this Court has taken serious note of the issue by summoning the Circle Inspector of Police and the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that the construction made in the area in question is against the CRZ notification. Further, the petitioner's allegation that the partly constructed building is a haven for anti-social elements is not seen refuted by anybody. That being so, the additional 4th respondent-Block Panchayat, Vaikom is directed to remove the construction already made in the land in question. The same shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/