IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 4TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 13TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 26288 of 2008(D) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- A.J.VARGHESE, S/O.OUSEP, ADAVICHIRA KANNANKOTTAL HOUSE, PALLIKKACHIRA.P.O, PAIPAD MURI, CHANGANASSERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SURVEY SUPERINTENDENT, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. TALUK SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE, MALLAPPALLY. 4. MALLAPPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R.DEEPA – R1 TO R3 ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ANTONY DOMINIC, J ----------------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.26288/2008 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT The prayer in this writ petition is to direct the 4th respondent to issue building permit to the petitioner for construction of the building as shown in Ext.P9 series of documents. The petitioner submits that he had a dispute with the 4th respondent Panchayat on an allegation that he is in possession of Purambokku land vested in the Panchayat. It is stated that following Ext.P7 judgment, the second respondent measured the property and on that basis prepared Ext.P8, suggesting that there is excess land in the possession of the petitioner. Though the petitioner submits that he is aggrieved by Ext.P8 and wants to challenge the same, still it is contended that the area covered by Ext.P9 and the application for building permit, is the area which is undisputed and in his exclusive possession. WP(c).No.262288/08 2 2. On behalf of the 4th respondent Panchayat, it is now submitted that following Ext.P7 judgment, measurement was conducted without putting the Panchayat on notice and that the Panchayat is also equally aggrieved by Ext.P8. Now that both parties are aggrieved by Ext.P8, I do not think it safe to direct consideration of the petitioner's application based on Ext.P8. In my view, the most appropriate course would be to direct that the a fresh measurement be conducted by the second respondent with notice to both the petitioner and the 4th respondent. On the basis of the plan so prepared, it will be for the Panchayat to consider Ext.P9 series of document. Accordingly, it is directed that the second respondent shall survey the land as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment and on receipt of the plan and report the Panchayat shall consider Ext.P9 and the application submitted by the petitioner without any further delay. WP(c).No.262288/08 3 Writ Petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE vi. WP(c).No.262288/08 4