IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16801 of 2010(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VALSA JOSE,W/O.M.O.JOSE, MENACHERY HOUSE, KALLIKAD PALAKKAD TALUK, PIRIYARI AMSOM, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ SMT.SHAJNA FIROZ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. PALGHAT MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD,686 575, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, PALGHAT MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, PALAKKAD 686 575. 3. ASHOK KUMAR, VIPIN NIVAS(23), AYODYA NAGAR,KALLIKAD, PALLIPURAM PO, PALAKKAD-6. R2 BY S.C. SHRI T.C. SURESH MENON THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.16801 of 2010-A - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the stop memo issued by the Municipality as per Ext.P1. The same is passed on the basis of a complaint filed by the third respondent. The petitioner contends that the property was purchased as per Ext.P2 registered sale deed and thereafter mutation was effected and the petitioner is in ownership and possession of the property which is supported by Ext.P3 tax receipt produced by the petitioner. Ext.P5 is the building permit issued by the Secretary of the Municipality and thereafter the petitioner started construction of a residential house as per the approved plan. 2. On issuance of Ext.P1, the petitioner applied for a copy of the complaint and the same has been produced as Ext.P6. It appears that the complaint raised therein is that the area wherein the petitioner is constructing a residential building, is one earmarked for a playground as per the approved lay out of the Ayodhya Nagar Housing Colony. Ext.P7 is the objection submitted by the petitioner before the Municipality. It is submitted that no further orders have been passed so far, which has wpc 16801/2010 2 prevented the petitioner from continuing with the construction. 3. Heard learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality. 4. It is submitted that a decision will be taken by the Secretary of the Municipality after hearing the petitioner and the third respondent, expeditiously, and at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The same is recorded. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/