IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2011 / 28TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 2767 of 2010(U) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- CHAKKAPPAN S/O.MATHEW, AGED 61 YRS, KELANGATH PUDUSSERY HOUSE, ADUVASSERY PO, KUNNUKARA, ALUVA-VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.RAJEEV (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. KUNNUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE KUNNUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH KUNNUKARA PO, ALUVA VIA, ERNAKULAM DIST/. 2. THE SECRETARY, KUNNUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KUNNUKARA PO, ALUVA VIA, ERNAKULAM DIST. 3. KUNNUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, KUNNUKARA PO, ALUVA VIA, ERNAKULAM DIST. R2, R3 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2011, ALONG WITH WPC NO.2693 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 2767/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.2159 DATED 28/06/2007 EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF LAND TAX BY THE PETITIONER. P2: COPY OF THE RECEIPT BEARING RECEIPT NO.57336 DATED 26/12/06 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH ON REMITTANCE OF BUILDING TAX FOR THE BUILDING BEARING NOS.X/396, 397 AND 398. P3: COPY OF THE NOTICE BEARING NO.A389/2007 DATED 07/07/2007 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 06/08/2007 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 06/08/2007 FILED ALONG WITH EXT. P4. P6: COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.DB 41/0708/KRA/28 DATED 31/07/2007. P7: COPY OF JUDGMENT IN WRIT PETITION NO.24846/2007 DATED 20/08/2007. P8: COPY OF ORDER DATED 28/09/2007 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY KUNNUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH. P9: INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE PANCHAYATH UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT. P10: COPY OF DOCUMENT COLLECTED FROM THE P.W.D. OFFICE AT ALUVA. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).Nos.2767 & 2693 Of 2010 ---------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2011. J U D G M E N T Petitioners in these writ petitions are husband and wife. The relief sought for in W.P.(C).No.2767/2011 is to quash Ext.P8 and Ext.P6 notice in W.P.(C).No.2693/2011 and for a direction commanding the 2nd respondent to number the building and for other incidental reliefs. According to the petitioners, Exts.P8 & P6 are issued by the 2nd respondent in violation of the principles of natural justice and without issuing notice to them. 2. It is averred in the writ petitions that the petitioners have not constructed or re-constructed any buildings. The work did was the strengthening of the existing building for which they are paying property tax for the last several years. The direction in Exts.P8 & P6 are to demolish the building of the petitioners which were passed without going into the merits of the contentions nor after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. It is pointed out in W.P.(C).No.2767/2010 that the old building was constructed as early as in 1972 and no construction has been carried out in violation of the Building Rules and therefore there is no justifiable reason to issue notices directing demolition of the existing building. ::2:: W.P.(C).Nos.2767 & 2693 Of 2010 3. The learned counsel for the Panchayath submits that in Ext.P8 & P6, a direction is issued to the petitioners to appear and present the facts leading to the construction of the building referred in the respective orders. The learned counsel also pointed out that no final orders have been passed. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are at liberty to file representations or objection as the case may be with supporting documents against the continuance of the proceedings initiated and in that event, the Panchayath will consider the objections and shall pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. 4. Taking into account the submission of the learned counsel on both sides and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court direct the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-