IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 2ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 11TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 22934 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJIDA BEEVI,W/O.NAZERKUNJU,MAROOR HOUSE ELIPPAKULANAGAR MURI,KATTANAM VILLAGE, BHUDHANNOOR.P.O,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ALAPPUZHA,PIN-680001. 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHENGANNUR,PIN-689121. 3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,VALLIKUNNAM POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,PIN-690501. 4. ABDUL RASHEED,S/O.IBRAHIMKUTTY, CHERAMALIL THEKKETHIL,(VALIAZHIKETHU), ELIPPAKKULAM.P.O,PIN-690501. 5. NISAM,S/O.ABDUL REHIM,KUMPAZHATHEKKATHIL ELIPPAKKULAM.P.O,PIN-690501. ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) FOR R4,5 SRI.A.R.DILEEP FOR R4,5 SMT.NAVA VARGHESE FOR R4,5 BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.C.M.CHARISMA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.22934/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT NO.A2.10529/10 DATED 27/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, SECRETARY, BHARANICKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE BUILDING PLAN APPROVED BY THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P3; COPY OF THE REPORT NO.89/2010 DATED 6/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURE OFFICER, BHARANICKAVU GRAMA PANCHAYATH. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 3/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KATTANAM VILLAGE. EXT.P5; COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE PROPERTY CONSTRUCTION SITE. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE DYFI FLAG IN FRONT OF PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. EXT.P7; COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 15/8/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8; COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 15/8/2011 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P9; COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 29/8/2011 ISSUED BY THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, BHARANICKAVU PANCHAYAT. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXT.R4(A) : SERIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE NATURE AND LIE OF THE LAND IN DISPUTE. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No. 22934 OF 2011 ------------------------ Dated this the 2nd day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. The petitioner is the title holder of 14.7 Ares of property comprised in Re-Sy.No.736/7-3, 737/5-2/3 and 737/15-2/5 of Kattanam Village. The petitioner is constructing a residential building in the said property on the strength of Ext.P1 Building Permit and Ext.P2 Approved Plan issued by the Bharanickavu Grama Panchayat. Grievance of the petitioner is that, the respondents 4 an 5, who are the neighbouring property owners, are creating obstructions to the construction activities. It is stated that the respondents 4 and 5, with the help of certain others, have obstructed bringing of building materials into the property. It is further alleged that the 4th respondent made an open threat that if the petitioner continues the construction works in the property, he has to face dire consequences with respect to the lives of himself and his family members. It is also alleged that the respondents 4 and 5 and their henchmen had planted a WPC.No.22934/2011 2 flag of the organisation, DYFI in front of the petitioner's property and is continuing with the illegal activity of constant threats, intimidations and obstructions. The petitioner filed Exts.P7 complaint to the 3rd respondent. Since no action was taken, this writ petition is filed. 2. Objections from the side of the respondents 4 and 5 are obviously on the ground that the petitioner is making an attempt to reclaim wet land, under the guise of construction of the residential house. It is further contended by respondents 4 and 5 that, against the illegal reclamation, the Revenue Divisional Officer had issued Stop Memo against the petitioner. However, no copy of any such proceedings is produced in this writ petition. On the other hand, the petitioner had produced Ext.P3, copy of the inspection report issued by the Agricultural officer as well as Ext.P4 certificate issued by the Village Officer, which will indicate that Coconut Trees having the age of 15 years and other fruit bearing trees are situated in the property of the petitioner. The petitioner had also produced Ext.P9 certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer to the effect that the property belonging to the petitioner was already reclaimed and there are standing WPC.No.22934/2011 3 coconut trees and other trees having the age of more than 15 years. It is further stated that, since the property is not cultivable with paddy, it is not included in the data bank prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 strongly contended that Exts.P3, P4 and P9 could not be relied upon because only a portion of the land in question remains reclaimed and that with respect to the low lying wet land there is no permit obtained by the petitioner for any such reclamation. It is also contended that Ext.P9 certificate is obtained only after filing of the writ petition. 3. From the facts and circumstances enumerated as above, as well as from the rival contentions raised on either side, we notice that the petitioner was issued with a Building Permit as per Ext.P1 and P2 by the Grama Panchayat concerned. If respondents 4 and 5 have got any complaint that the permit was issued in violation of any of the statutory provisions, they should take steps to approach the competent authority to get the permit cancelled. It is also left open to respondents 4 and 5 to approach the appropriate authority raising complaints if they WPC.No.22934/2011 4 have got grievance to the effect that under the guise of construction the petitioner is attempting to reclaim the low lying wet land. As long as any competent authority has not issued any proceedings directing stoppage of the construction or in any manner cancelling the permit already granted, the respondents 4 and 5 or anybody else claiming under them can be permitted to create any physical obstruction to the construction activity. 4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we direct the 3rd respondent to take effective steps to avert physical obstruction if any caused to the construction of the residential building in the property owned by the petitioner, on the strength of Ext.P1 and P2 Building Permit and Approved Plan. The third respondent should ensure that no obstruction is caused to the petitioner in bringing building materials to her property. If any obstruction is there, the 3rd respondent should take effective steps to afford protection for continuing with the construction activity. It is made clear that the above directions will not stand in the way of respondents 4 and 5 approaching the competent WPC.No.22934/2011 5 authority raising complaint with respect to illegal reclamation of wet land or paddy land if any made by the petitioner in violation of the statutory provisions. PIUS C.KURIAKOSE,JUDGE C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JUDGE. dpk