IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE MONDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2008 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 8014 of 2008(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ K.A.IGNATIOUS, S/O.ALOSIOUS, RESIDING AT KOYIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KATTOOR P.O. KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA 688 546. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.) SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON SRI.JIBU P THOMAS SRI.P.S.APPU RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. MARARIKULAM SOUTH GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, KATTOOR P.O., KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA 688 546. 3. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KALAVOOR, ALAPPUZHA. R1 & R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE,J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.8014 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated: 10th March, 2008 JUDGMENT In this Writ Petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order issued by the 2nd respondent-Panchayat directing demolition of his buildings having door Nos.XIX/532B, 532C & 532D on the allegation that the constructions offend Section 220(b) of the Panchayat Raj Act. The petitioner also prays that Ext.P9 order be reconsidered and a fresh order be issued by the Panchayat after adverting to Ext.P8 objections which had been filed by him to Ext.P7 notice issued by the Panchayat. There is a further prayer that while passing the order the Panchayat shall consider the impact of the proviso to Section 220(b) of the Panchayat Raj Act. Learned counsel also drew my attention to my own judgment in Thomas Paul v. State of Kerala (2007(1) KLT 267) and submitted that in all probability the Panchayat has not issued any notification including the roads abutting the place where the building has been constructed for the purpose of Section 220(b). 2. Heard Mr.V.Chitambaresh, Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Mr.K.J.Mohammed Anzar, learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 3. In nature of the orders which are being passed hereunder, I am not inclined to issue notice to the 2nd W.P.C.No.8014/08 - 2 - respondent-Panchayat. The Writ Petition will stand disposed of issuing the following directions since Ext.P9 does not advert to the contentions raised by the petitioner through Ext.P8 objections or consider the impact of the proviso to Section 220(b): The 2nd respondent will hear the petitioner taking into account the contentions raised by the petitioner through Ext.P8 objections and pass fresh orders on the question whether any portion of the petitioner's building is liable to be demolished on the ground of alleged violation of Section 220(b) of the Panchayat Raj Act. While passing fresh orders, the Panchayat shall consider the impact of the proviso to Section 220(b). The Panchayat will also consider whether the road abutting the petitioner's property is covered by Section 220 (b) of the Panchayat Raj Act and this issue will be considered in the light of the judgment of this court Thomas Paul v. State of Kerala (supra). In order to enable the Panchayat to comply with the above directions, I quash Ext.P9 and direct the Panchayat to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner at the earliest and at any rate within three months of receiving copy of this judgment. srd PIUS C.KURIAKOSE, JUDGE W.P.C.No.8014/08 - 3 -