IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 8TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 6567 of 2008(F) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SHIBU MATHEW, S/O.MATHUKUTTY, KUNHITHOTTATHIL VEEDU, CHITTUR MURI, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. P.V.THOMASKUTTY, PUTHUSSERIL VEEDU, NANNUVAKKADU P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. THE SECRETARY, PATHANAMTHITTA MUNICIPALITY, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.SUNIL SHRI.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 6567 of 2008 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 27th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T As directed by me, Shri.V.K.Sunil, learned standing counsel for the Municipality has taken notice. I have heard the submissions of Shri.T.Krishnanunni, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and those of Shri.V.K.Sunil and learned Government Pleader. 2. Ext.P1 revenue extract will clearly show that even from very ancient times, the properties upon which the petitioner wants to construct the building are classified as dry lands. The insistance of the 3rd respondent on the complaint of the 1 st respondent that the petitioner should obtain permit under the Land Utilisation Order for putting up construction is totally unjustified. In my opinion, the 3rd respondent has not justified in restraining the petitioner from carrying on with the constructions on the strength of a permit which has been duly issued to him by the local authority. Since Ext.P3 is only an interim order, I do not propose to quash the same straight away. At the same time I dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to continue with the constructions since Ext.P1 clearly shows that the petitioner’s property is actually dry land. The petitioner is informed that the construction put up by him in the WP(C) No. 6567/2008 -2- light of this judgment will be subject to the final out come of the proceedings before the 3rd respondent. (PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) jg