IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 11TH JULY 2008 / 20TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 12809 of 2008(Y) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ JAI ISSAC, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.K.J.SLEEBAKUTTY, KAMUKUMPILLIL HOUSE, PUTHUVELIKARA, VELIYANNUR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. VELIYANNUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VELIYANNUR P.O. 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.V.MANOJKUMAR ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS - R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/07/2008, ALONG WITH WPC NO. 14354 OF 2008 AND WPC NO. 14436 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ---------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C).NOs.12809/2008,14354/08&14436/08 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT In WP(c).No.12809/2008, the petitioner, who owns 4.3 cents of land in survey No.86/8/2 of Vellyannur Village, is seeking to quash Ext.P5 notice issued to him. According to the petitioner, his aforesaid plot of land is abutting M.C road, a road declared as National Highway. It is stated that he wanted to construct a residential cum commercial building and obtained Ext.P1 permit. Ext.P2 is the plan approved by the Panchayat and Local Self Government Department. Petitioner submits that, based on Exts.P1 and P2, permission was accorded to the proposal for construction, by the Executive engineer of the PWD roads division. Ext.P3 is the communication in this regard. In pursuance to Ext.P3, the petitioner has already entered into WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 2 Ext.P4 agreement with PWD authorities. According to the petitioner, while construction was undertaken strictly in compliance with Exts.P1 to P4,alleging that he had made construction in violation of Exts.P1 and P2, by not leaving the required clearance between his building and the National Highway, Ext.P5 notice was issued by the Panchayat. Though, according to him, he filed Ext.P6 reply, further orders were not passed and thereupon WP(c). No.12089/2008 was filed. 2. WP(c).No.14354/2008 is filed by Veliyannor Grama Panchayat. According to the Panchayat, when the violations committed by the petitioner were brought to its notice, the Panchayat issued a stop memo which is referred to as Ext.P5, in WP(c).No.12805/2008 and ignoring the said stop memo, construction was continued. Therefore, the Panchayat sought the assistance of the authorities to enforce the stop memo which was not forthcoming and hence this writ petition was filed praying for police assistance for implementing the stop memo. 3. WP(c).No.14436/2008 is filed by a local resident, on WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 3 whose compliant the Panchayat initiated action, resulting in the stop memo referred to above. His complaint is that despite the complaint made and the stop memo that was issued, the Secretary of the Panchayat was not taking any action for the implementation there of and it was in those circumstances he filed the writ petition again to compel the authorities of the Panchayat to implement the stop memo. 4. The allegation in the stop memo referred above is that the petitioner in WP(c).No.12809/2008 was constructing a building, on a plot of land abutting the MC road, without leaving 5 meter clearance as is required in the building permit and also in the sanction accorded by the PWD authorities and the agreement that he had entered into with the PWD authorities. Referring to the plan approved by the authorities, produced as Ext.P2 in WP(c). No.12809/2008, the petitioner therein contends that it was strictly in accordance with the specifications in the approved plan that he made the constructions. It is stated that, since the construction is fully on the basis of the approved plan, he cannot now be accused of any violation of the building WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 4 permit or the agreement. This submission of the counsel for the builder is contradicted by the counsel for the Panchayat and it is asserted that against the terms of the approved plan and permit the construction has been undertaken by the petitioner, in violation there of. 5. From the rival claims made by both the builder and the Panchayat, what is to be ascertained is whether the builder has undertaken the construction in violation of the terms of he approved plan, building permit and agreement, which are produced Exts.P1,P2 and P4 in WP(c). No.12809/2008. This is a technical issue and only by an expert of the revenue department can assess and such assessment alone will resolve the issue. 6. In order to resolve this controversy I direct that the Tahsildar, Meenachal will himself or by an officer authroised by him, will measure the plot of land covered by the approved plan (Ext.P2 in WP(c).No.12809/2008) and ascertain as to whether any portion of the construction undertaken by the petitioner in that writ petition is in violation of the terms of the approved plan. In order to WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 5 safeguard the interest of the Panchayat, it is directed that it will be open to the Veliyannoor Grama Panchayat to have their representatives also present at the time when the survey is carried out as above. It is further directed that, in the survey so conducted, if it is revealed that any unauthorised construction has been undertaken by the petitioner in WP(c).No.12809/2008, such unauthorised construction will be demolished, to which the petitioner has also no objection. On the other hand, if it is found that the construction is in compliance with the building permit and the approved plan, he will be permitted to proceed with the construction, without any obstruction whatsoever. 7. It is noticed that in WP(c).No.14354/2008 filed by the Panchayat, this court had passed an interim order dated 13.5.2008, restraining the builder from proceeding with the construction. It is submitted that, as a result there of ,he could not proceed with the work. In view of the above, the matter needs to be resolved on an expeditious basis. Therefore, it is directed that the petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the Tahsildar, Meenachal and WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 6 on such production, the Tahsildar, Meenachal shall have the survey conducted as above, within 4 weeks thereafter. It is also directed that the surveyor before surveying the road in question give at least 3 days advance notice to the Veliyanoor Grama Panchayat, in order to enable the Panchayat to depute a representative to be present on the occasion and the petitioner in WP(c).No.12809/2008 Writ Petitions are disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, vi JUDGE WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 7 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 8 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 9 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 10 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 11 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 12 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 13 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 14 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 15 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 16 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 17 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 18 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 19 + WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 20 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 21 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 22 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 23 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 24 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 25 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 26 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 27 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 28 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 29 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 30 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 31 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 32 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 33 WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 34 . ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE WP(c).Nos.12809/2008 & Ors. 35 vi.