IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 SA.No. 740 of 1997() ------------------------------ AS.70/1995 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, THALASSERY OS.145/1994 of MUNSIFF COURT,KANNUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT-IST DEFENDANT ------------------------------------------------------------------- VALLUVA PUTHAN VEETTIL PRASANNA, W/O. PUTHAN VEETTIL JABBAR, AZHIKODE AMSOM AND DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SANGEETHA S.KAMATH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF AND D2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ARAYAKANDI NARAYANI, W/O. KUNHIKANNAN, ARAYAKANDI HOUSE, AZHIKODE AMSOM AND DESOM, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THE SPECIAL GRADE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AZHIKODE PANCHAYATH, AZHIKODE, KANNUR TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.N.RAMESAN NAMBISAN SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL SRI.N.M.MADHU SRI.C.KRISHNAN THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss P.BHAVADASAN, J. --------------------------------------- S.A. No.740 OF 1997 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of July, 2010 JUDGMENT Dispute in this case relates to the construction of a latrine. The 1st defendant in O.S.No.145 of 1994 before the Munsiff's Court, Kannur is the appellant herein. The grievance of the plaintiff in the suit is that a latrine is being constructed by the 1st defendant within 15 metres of the well of the plaintiff. Therefore possibility of causing water pollution in the well is imminent. Even though plaintiff had moved the authorities concerned, she could not get any relief. Therefore she approached this Court. 2. It is an admitted case of the 1st defendant constructing a latrine within a distance of 11.5 metres from the well of the plaintiff. According to the 1st defendant construction done was after obtaining a permit from the Panchayath and also the nature of latrine constructed is such that there is no possibility of any leakage or pollution of water in the well. S.A. No.740 OF 1997 2 3. The court below raised necessary issues for consideration. The evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked from the side of the plaintiff. On the side of defendant, DW1 was examined and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked. Ext.C1 to C4 Commissioner's report and plans were marked. 4. The trial court found that construction of latrine being done in violation of the permission and licence granted by Panchayath and also Rule 31(7) (i) of the Kerala Building Rules 1984 and decreed the suit prohibiting the 1st defendant from constructing a latrine within 15 metres of the well. Aggrieved by the decree the defendant carried the matter in appeal. The appellate court on consideration of all the relevant facts found that the findings of the trial court was perfectly justified. The District Court found apart from taking statutory violation, permission was granted by the Panchayath imposing a condition, which the defendant is bound to comply but had violated. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. S.A. No.740 OF 1997 3 5. I find no grounds to interfere at all. In the order granting licence and permission it was stipulated that latrine shall be put up only 15 metres away from the nearest well. Of course there is a case for the defendant/appellant that construction of the well began after the construction of the latrine had commenced. Both the courts below found otherwise. It is concurrently found that construction of well began earlier. The defendant is bound to comply with the statutory provisions as well as the conditions stipulated in the permit as rightly held by court belows. No grounds are made out to interfere the judgment and decree of the court below. This appeal is without merits and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. P.BHAVADASAN, JUDGE. mns