IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2011 / 17TH POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 5639 of 2004(U) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. PANDIKASALA ASSAN KUTTY, S/O. AVARAN KUTTY, PANDIKASALA HOUSE, RAMANATTUKARA POST, VELIPRAM AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. PANDIKASALA PATHUMMAKUTTY UMMA, W/O. AVARAN KUTTY, PANDIKASALA HOUSE, RAMANATTUKARA POST, VELIPRAM AMSOM, DEOSM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. AYISHA, W/O. IRUMBAN MOIDEENKUTTY MASTER, KAVUNGAL HOUSE, P.O. PARAMBIL PEEDIKA, OLANGARA AMSOM, KOYAPPA DESOM, THIROORANGADI TALUK, KOZHIKODE DIST. 4. MYMOONATH, W/O. ALAPADIAN MOOSA, KALATHINGAL HOUSE, P.O. CHELAMBRA, CHELAMBRA AMSOM AND DESOM, THIROORANGADI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. RAMANATTUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VELIPRAM AMSOM AND DESOM, POST RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 3. K.T. HASSAN HAJI, KUNIYIL THEKKE THODI, VELIPRAM AMSOM AND DESOM, POST RAMANATTUKARA, KOZHIKODE TALUK. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SHRI. R. RAMSESH FOR R1 SRI.K.PRAVEEN KUMAR FOR R3 ADV. SRI.T.R.RAVI FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/ 01 / 2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: SS/- W.P.(C)5639 / 2004 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS Ext.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT SANCTIONED BY THE PANCHAYAT DATED 05.2.2002 Ext.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOC FROM THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAY SUB DIVISION PERINTHALMANNA DATED 24.7.2003 Ext.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE PLAINT IN O.S. NO.766/2003. Ext.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE INJUNCTION APPLICATION DATED 14.10.2003 Ext.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A. NO.4434/2003 IN O.S. NO.766/2003 DATED 25.10.2003 Ext.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONERS DATED 13.10.2003 Ext.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. Ext.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE OVERSEAR OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 06.11.2003 Ext.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 07.11.2003 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Ext.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 24.11.2003 Ext.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DATED 15.12.2003 Ext.P12 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 27.12.2003 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : Nil ss/. C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO. 5639 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners who are the owners of property comprised in Survey No.299/7B of Ramanattukara Village were granted with Ext.P1 building permit. While they were carrying out construction in terms of Ext.P1 permit, Ext.P6 stop memo was issued to stop further construction. It is on being aggrieved by Ext.P6 stop memo and Ext.P7 letter from the second respondent that this Writ Petition has been filed mainly with the prayer to quash Exts.P6 and P7. The further prayer is for a declaration that the petitioners are entitled to put up construction in Survey No.299/7B of Ramanattukara Village in Kozhikode Taluk as per Ext.P1. 2. On 20.2.2004, this Court passed an interim order as follows: “The petitioner has been granted Ext.P1 permit to construct a building. During the course of the construction, he was served with Ext.P6 memo stating that there is some irregularity in the construction and he has been asked to stop the construction also. I heard the learned counsel appearing the panchayath and also the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Ext.P6 is vague. If the petitioner has made any construction deviating from the plan, the same shall be pointed out to him, so that he can cure the defect and continue the construction. W.P.(C) NO.5639/2004 2 The panchayath may do this within one week from today. In that event, the petitioner will be free to proceed with the construction subject to implementation of the direction issued by the panchayath. Thus it is obvious that upon finding that Ext.P6 is too vague, this Court granted liberty to the second respondent-panchayath to point out the illegality specifically to the petitioners to enable them to cure the defect and then continue with the construction. For that purpose, the second respondent -panchayath was granted a week time from 20.2.2004. There is no case for the petitioner and also for the second respondent that subsequent to the said interim order, the panchayath had issued any order to disable the petitioners to continue with construction. Apparently, pursuant to the interim order dated 20.2.2004, the petitioners must have continued with the construction. At any rate, there is no material before this Court to presume further impediment in the matter of construction in terms of Ext.P1. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners to raise further grievance, if any, in the matter of construction based on Ext.P1 in appropriate proceedings. Subject to the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.5639/2004 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.5639/2004 4