IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 13475 of 2011(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PONNAMMA JOHN,W/O.JOHN MATHAI,AGED 59, JOHN VILLA, PUTHOOR P.O, KOTTARAKKARA KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KULAKADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KULAKADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH MAVADI P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 507. 2. SECRETARY, KULAKADA GRAMA PANCHAYATH MAVADI P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 507. 3. MATHAIKUTTY, TONY BHAVAN, PUTHOOR P.O KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4. THOMAS M, -DO- ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM FOR R3,4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO. 13475/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : EXT.P1-TRUE COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT OF THE PETITIONER AND HER SON. EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE RECIEPT OF EXT.P2 EXT.P4 – COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS :NIL. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE al. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13475 OF 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of May 2011. J U D G M E N T The Petitioner and his son jointly own and posses 3.03 ares of property in Resurvey Nos. 90/21 & 22 of Puthoor Village. In the said property, he had already constructed 3 shop rooms and a residential building. The said construction were assigned building number by the second respondent. Respondents 3 and 4 are owners of the adjacent properties . They have started construction on the first floor of their already existing building. There upon the petitioner submitted Ext.P2 complaint. This Writ Petition has been filed alleging inaction on the part of the respondent on Ext.P2 complaint. The further prayer is for the issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to prevent respondents 3 and 4 from continuing such constructions. 2. I have carefully gone through the averments in the Writ Petition. Apart from the vague allegations W.P.C No. 13475/2011 2 that the constructions are being continued by the respondents 3 to 4 without maintaining requisite open space between the two buildings and the floor area ratio is also below the statutory minimum, there is absolute absence of specific contentions regarding the violations. In that context, it is also relevant to refer to the complaint made before the 2nd respondent. A scrutiny of Ext.P2 complaint would also reveal that the allegations made thereunder are vague. In the absence of specific contentions with respect to the violation of the provisions with details I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not justified in raising grievances against the construction being carried out by respondents 3 and 4 in their properties. I am of the view that respondents also cannot be found fault with their inaction in such circumstances. The contention of the petitioner is that on the first floor of the buildings belong to the respondents 3 and 4 they are effecting further constructions. If they have obtained the requisite permit from the competent W.P.C No. 13475/2011 3 authorities respondents 1 and 2, are certainly, at liberty, to effect such constructions in accordance with the approved plan and conditions of permit. The photographs produced by the petitioner also would not persuade me to take any other view. In short, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition and it is liable to fail. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. C.T.RAVIKUMAR JUDGE al