IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2010 / 24TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1246 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHAKKALA KUNNAN ABDUL AZIZ, S/O.MOHAMMED HAJI, `SUHANI' P.O.ANAKKAYAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 509 (THROUGH SON AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHAHNAVAS BABU). BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK SMT.APARNA RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, ANAKKAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, P.O.ANAKKAYAM, MALAPPURAM-676 509. 2. THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY (LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT) GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, MALAPPURAM. MS.K.R.DEEPA, SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.1246 of 2010 (E) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 14th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner's case is that before the implementation of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules within the area covered by Aanakkayam Grama Panchayat, he constructed a commercial building in his property situated in Survey No.45/70/4 of Aanakkayam Village having an extent of 72 cents. It is stated that at the time of construction, necessary set backs were provided and that the building was numbered, tax was assessed, and that payment made was accepted. According to the petitioner, it was only subsequently with effect from 06/06/2007 the Building Rules were implemented. It is stated that still later, the Perinthalmanna- Manjeri road was widened resulting in reduction in the set back. The petitioner's case is that in view of the fact that this was a subsequent development, in the light of Ext.P3 Government Order, such reduction is irrelevant. 2. Be that as it may, he was issued Ext.P5 order cancelling WP(C) No.1246/2010 -2- the number assigned to the building, and for demolition of the offending portion. On its receipt, he filed Ext.P6 explanation. It is stated that there has not been any progress in the matter since then. While the matter remained as such, the 1st respondent refused to accept building tax in respect of the building and that made the petitioner to file Ext.P7 representation. Even after Ext.P7, there has not been any progress. It is in these circumstances, this writ petition is filed. 3. In my view, the entire controversy can be given a quietus if the respondent Panchayat decides on Ext.P5 notice taking in to account Ext.P3 Government order and Ext.P6 explanation submitted by the petitioner. Depending upon the decision to be taken on Ext.P5, if necessary, the stand of the Panchayat in so far as the acceptance of tax also will have to be reviewed. 4. Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to decide on Ext.P5, taking into account Exts.P3 & P6 referred to above with notice to the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ WP(C) No.1246/2010 -3- petition. It is directed that in the meanwhile, status quo as on date in so far as Ext.P5 shall be maintained. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg