IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2009 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1931 WP(C).No. 11854 of 2009(B) ------------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ASHRAFALI, AGED 53, S/O. MUHAMMAD, KALATHIL NEDUVELIPARAMBIL, U.C COLLEGE P.O, ALWAYE- 2, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN SRI.S.SREEDEV RESPONDENTS : ------------------- 1. KHADEEJA MAIDEEN PILLA, AGED 60, W/O. MAIDEEN PILLA, ELAVUMKAPARMBIL VEEDU, U.C. COLLEGE P.O, ALWAYE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KAKKANADU, ERNAKULAM. 3. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ALWAYE WEST VILLAGE, ALWAYE, ERNAKULAM. SRI. P.N. SANTHOSH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.11854 OF 2009 ------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of April, 2009. JUDGMENT By Ext.P1 order passed by the Munsiff Court, Aluva in I.A.NO.2597/08 in O.S.No.489/08, petitioner submits that she was permitted to undertake construction in his property without causing any obstruction to respondents in Ext.P1. Now it is stated that when construction was attempted to be carried out, on the directions of the District Court, the Village Officer issued Ext.P2 restraining the petitioner from continuing the work and stating that for resolution of the dispute the petitioner may approach the 3rd respondent. Petitioner submits that in pursuance to Ext.P2 he has filed Ext.P3 before the 3rd respondent and therefore the 3rd respondent should have considered the said representation. It is complaining that despite having filed Ext.P3 there has not been any action on the part of the WP(c).N.11854/09 /2/ 3rd respondent, this writ petition is filed. Evidently, by Ext.P1 petitioner was permitted to carry on the work subject to the conditions mentioned therein. Now that by Ext.P2 petitioner has been restrained from continuing the work, what requires to be ascertained is whether the construction was in compliance with Ext.P1. This certainly is a matter for the 3rd respondent to consider. Therefore, having regarding to the pendency of Ext.P3 the 3rd respondent is directed to consider and pass orders thereon, obviously with notice to the petitioner and the first respondent, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).N.11854/09 /2/