IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 25TH AUGUST 2008 / 3RD BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 13895 OF 2006(D) -------------------------- OS.126/2002 OFMUNSIFF COURT, CHANGANACHERRY .................... PETITIONER: ------------- P.V.VELSY, S/O. VARGHESE, RESIDING AT WHITE HOUSE, PERUNNAI EAST. BY ADV. SRI.BABU PAUL RESPONDENTS: ---------------- 1. REVIKUMAR, S/O. TETNAMA, RESIDING AT SREYAS, PERUNNAI EAST. 2. THE CHANGANACHERRY MUNICIPALITY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, CHANGANACHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R2 SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR FOR R2 SRI.RAJEEV.P.NAIR FOR R1 SRI.REJI GEORGE FOR R1 SMT.MANJU RAJAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C)13895/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 27.4.2002 EXT.P2:- TRUE COPY OF THE COMMISSION REPORT DATED 2.7.2002 EXT.P3:- TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 22.7.2003 EXT.P4:- TRUE COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 1.8.2003 EXT.P5:- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.3.06 IN I.A.1265/03 IN O.S.126/02 RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS:- NIL OKB/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) NO.13895 OF 2006 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 25th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents the defendants in O.S.126 of 2002 on the file of Munsiff Court, Changanassery. Ext.P4 petition (I.A.1265 of 2003) was filed to set aside the report and plan submitted by commissioner. In that application commissioner and two other witnesses were examined. Under Ext.P5 order, learned Munsiff found that there is no reason to set aside the report as there is no illegality or irregularity in the report and plan. This petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging Ext.P5 order. 2. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner and respondents were heard. 3. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for petitioner is that learned Munsiff did not consider the application in the proper perspective and proceeded as if petitioner does not want a report and plan by a commissioner. Learned counsel argued that if the property is not properly identified, his claim that the building is constructed in violation of the provisions of Kerala Muncipal Building Rules cannot be WP(C)13895/06 2 established and therefore petitioner wants a proper identification of the property by the Taluk Surveyor and learned Munsiff should have at least remitted the report back to the commissioner with a direction to submit a further report after inspection with the assistance of Taluk Surveyor. 4. Ext.P4 petition is only to set aside the report submitted by commissioner. There is no case that the report is to be remitted for a further report after proper identification by the Taluk Surveyor. The question considered in Ext.P5 order was whether the report is liable to be set aside on the grounds alleged in Ext.P4. Under Ext.P5 order it was found that there is no material or ground to set aside the report. I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the extra ordinary powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India. Petitioner is entitled to challenge Ext.P5 order along with a final judgment, if it goes against him. Writ petition is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE Okb/-