IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2011 / 29TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 34899 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- SUNIL, S/O.BHASKARAN, AGED 41 YEARS, MUNDUNADAKKAL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA KARA, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.A.C.DEVASIA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KATTAPPANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KATTAPPANA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KATTAPPANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, KATTAPPANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, PWD, PAINAVU, IDUKKI. 5. SAJI, S/O.PAILE, PLANTHOTTANICKAL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, KATTAPPANA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.K.RAMESH FOR R3 & R4 MR.LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM FOR R5 MR.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R-1 MR.A.S.SAJUSH PAUL FOR R-1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 34899 of 2010(J) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: PROCEEDINGS OF THE ALLOTMENT OF THE FUND TO THE ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES BY THE KATTAPPANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P2: SITE PLAN DATED NIL OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED FOR THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: REPRESENTATION DATED 28.10.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: EXT.R1(a): BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION DATED 22.9.2010 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.R1(b): BUILDING PLAN SUBMITTED BY R5 ALONG WITH EXT.R1(a). EXT.R1(c): POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 14.9.2010 ISSUED FROM THE VILLAGE OFFICE, KATTAPPANA. EXT.R1(d): BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO R5 DATED 23.9.2010. EXT.R5(a): BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FROM THE KATTAPPANA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. ......... // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.34899 Of 2010 ---------------------- Dated this the 20th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed by the petitioner, who is the adjacent property owner, for a direction commanding respondents 1 to 4 to prohibit the 5th respondent from constructing the proposed building by violating the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Rules and Panchayath Raj Act and Rules. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader, the learned Senior Counsel for the Panchayath and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent. 3. The complaint of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent, who is in occupation of some puramboke land, has obtained a building permit from the first respondent Panchayath and that the building permit was issued by the first respondent Panchayath in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Act and Rules. The petitioner also complained that the 5th respondent on the strength of permit and plan is doing construction by deviating from the permit and plan. Therefore, ::2:: W.P.(C).No.34899 Of 2010 he lodged Ext.P3 complaint before the Secretary, Kattappana Panchayath which is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent, Secretary of the Panchayath. 4. Respondents 1 & 2 filed counter affidavit. The 5th respondent also filed counter affidavit denying the averments in the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayath it is stated that in major portion of the Kattappana Panchayath area, the property owners are having only possessory right, that the property where the petitioner had undertaken construction of the residential building also is of the same nature, that the petitioner obtained building permit and plan in the property for which he has got possessory right. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the Panchayath issued building permit and plan after making necessary enquiries and site inspection. It is further stated that the 5th respondent is making construction in accordance with the approved plan and permit and that the plan approved by the Panchayath and permit were issued in accordance with the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and that there is no violation of any Rules as alleged by the petitioner. It ::3:: W.P.(C).No.34899 Of 2010 is averred that before granting permit and approval of the plan the necessary enquiries and site inspection were also conducted. It is also stated that the Assistant Engineer attached to the Panchayath conducted site inspection, during the pendency of the writ petition and after the lodging of Ext.P3 complaint. The Assistant Engineer reported that the 5th respondent is constructing the building in accordance with the approved plan and permit. In these circumstances, the respondent Panchayath and 5th respondent contended that the writ petition is without any merit and it is liable to be dismissed. The 5th respondent in the counter affidavit also raised similar contentions. 5. The petitioner preferred a complaint before the 2nd respondent. It is submitted at the Bar that the matter is pending consideration before the 2nd respondent and requested this Court to direct the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 complaint within a short period. 6. In these circumstances, this Court is not called upon to consider the contentions raised in the writ petition. This Court direct the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P3 ::4:: W.P.(C).No.34899 Of 2010 complaint after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and the 5th respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This Court granted an interim order restraining the 5th respondent from proceeding with the construction of the disputed building until further orders. The interim order passed by this Court shall continue till the period fixed for disposal of Ext.P3. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-