IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2010 / 23RD ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 26884 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- M.C.VARGHESE, MAVILAYIL, KARUVATTA MURI, ADOOR P.O., PERINGANADU VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN SRI.MATHEW B. KURIAN SRI.K.T.THOMAS RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM, PIN CODE - 1. 2. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN - 691 560. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KOTTARAKKARA, PIN - 691 560. 4. P.R.LISSYKUTTY, PEARL HILL, PULAMON P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, PIN - 691 560. 5. M.Y.THOMAS, MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, PULAMON P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, PIN - 691 560. 6. T.M.PHILIP, SINU BHAVAN, PULAMON P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, PIN - 691 560. ADV. SRI.SYAM J SAM FOR R4,5&6 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: wpc. 26884/2010 APPENDIX: PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 16/2/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24/3/2010 ISSUED BY TH 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY THE PTITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF OBJETION FILED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/4/2010 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA. RESPONDENTS EXTS: EXT.R6:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRSENTATION BEFOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 4/8/2008. EXT.R7: PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE TRUE PROBLEM FACED BY THE PARTY RESPONDENTS. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE KS. K.M.JOSEPH & M.C. HARI RANI,JJ ============================== W.P.(C) NO. 26884 OF 2010 ============================ Dated this the 15th Day of October 2010 JUDGMENT K.M. Joseph, J. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following prayers: a) To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining respondents 1 to 3 or any person under them from interfering with the work carried out by the petitioner in survey No.137/7 in Block No.22 of Kottarakkara Village, Kottarakkara Taluk as per Ext.P1 order issued by the 1st respondent. b) To declare that respondents 1 to 3 or any other person have no right or authority to interfere or obstruct the work carried out by the petitioner in terms of Ext.P1 order issued by the 1st respondent. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is in ownership and possession of an extent of 16.50 Ares of land in Survey No.137/7 in Block No.22 of Kottarakkara Village. He intends to construct a residential building in the said property. The property is having a height of W.P.(C)NO.26884/2010 -2- about 5 metres from the National Highway which is passing through the northern side of the said property. The petitioner applied for permission to the first respondent for removal of earth from an extent of 10 cents out of total extent of 16.50 Ares (40.77cents). He obtained permission vide Ext.P1. Subsequently respondents 4 to 6 filed a complaint before the first respondent alleging that due to the removal of the soil from petitioner's property, their buildings are likely to be damaged. It is stated that the complaint is enquired and settled and the petitioner is ready to take sufficient protective measures and there is no legal bar. But respondents 1 to 3 are not permitted the petitioner to carry out the work. Ext.P2 is a notice issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer. In Ext.P2 reference is made to the complaint made by respondents 4 to 6. The petitioner submitted Ext.P3. Ext.P4 is the objection of the one of the party respondents. Ext.P5 is an order dated 5/4/2010 passed by the Government. 3. A memo is produced which points out a settlement between the petitioner and respondents 4 to 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner and also respondents 4 to 6 reiterated the fact that there is a settlement and respondents 4 to 6 only W.P.(C)NO.26884/2010 -3- want the petitioner to comply with the terms of the settlement . 4. The learned Government Pleader also submits that in the light of the memo produced by the parties, respondents 1 to 3 will not interfere with the matter, as long as the conditions in the memo and also Ext.P1 order are complied with by the petitioner. We record the same and close the writ petition Sd/- K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/- M.C. HARI RANI,JUDGE ks.