IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH MARCH 2011 / 9TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C). No. 8044 of 2011(E) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- SUNIL, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. JANARDANAN CHETTIYAR, SIVASAKTHI VEEDU, VILLAGE & POST OFFICE POTHAKKULAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN (KOLLAM) RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE POOTHAKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, POOTHAKULAM.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 302. 2. THE VILLAGE OFFICER, POOTHAKULAM VILLAGE, KOLLAM DISTRICT - 691 302. R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P(C) No.8044 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner, along with his wife jointly own and possess 40 cents of property comprised in Resurvey No.362/11-12 of Block No.36 of Poothakulam Village. On 22.12.2010, they submitted an application for permission to construct a compound wall to the said property before the first respondent. According to the petitioner, on receipt of the said application vide Ext.P1, the first respondent addressed the second respondent requiring the latter to conduct a site inspection to ascertain the boundaries and prepare a location sketch report. Admittedly, without waiting for the permission the petitioner started the digging work for constructing the basement. Thereupon, the first respondent issued Ext.P2 requiring the petitioner to stop construction of the compound wall and informing him that the request for permit could be decided only after obtaining the report from the second respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that there is absolutely no boundary dispute and, therefore, there is no reason for the first respondent for delaying decision on the application submitted by the petitioner and his wife on 22.12.2010. It is on being aggrieved by the delay in the matter of W.P.(C) No.8044 of 2011 -2- disposal of said application, this writ petition has been filed. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader. The learned Government Pleader on instructions, submitted that on receipt of the request from the first respondent, the second respondent intimated the first respondent that the issued involved in this application virtually pertains to re-fixation of the boundary and the second respondent is not the authority competent for re-fixation of the boundary. Further, it is submitted that the Taluk Surveyor is the competent authority to consider such an application. The said fact was duly intimated to the first respondent by the second respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not at all intimated of any such subsequent developments. It is a fact that the application submitted by the petitioner on 22.10.2010 is still pending before the first respondent. Since the first respondent is competent to take a decision on the application for permission to construct compound wall the first respondent is bound to take a decision on the application submitted by the petitioner, is further submitted. 3. In view of the rival contentions and taking note of the fact W.P.(C) No.8044 of 2011 -3- that the petitioner and his wife have already submitted application for building permit on 22.12.2010, and that the first respondent was given a reply by the second respondent pursuant to the receipt of Ext.P1 I am of the view that the first respondent is bound to take a decision thereon, in accordance with law. There is no impediment at all for the first respondent to take appropriate decision based on the reply given by the second respondent. Therefore, the first respondent cannot defer the decision any further. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the application submitted jointly by the petitioner and his wife for permission to construct compound wall for the property having an extent of 40 cents comprised in Resurvey No.362/11-12 of Block No.36 of Poothakulam Village. Such a decision shall be taken, expeditiously, at any rate within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE KRK