IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 34144 of 2007(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUKUMARAN, KADAYIL VEEDU NEAR RADIO STATION, ENGINEERING COLLEGE P.O. PANGAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VARGHESE C.KURIAKOSE SRI.ADEEP ANWAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SREEKARYAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH (SPECIAL GRADE) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY OFFICE OF THE SREEKARYAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH SREEKARYAM P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-17. 2. C.BABY, KALLARA HOUSE, CHENNILODE MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O,.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL ADMINISTRATION,SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION, SREEKARYAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR FOR R2 SRI.G.BIJU FOR R2 SRI.RAM MOHAN.G. FOR R1 SRI.G.P.SHINOD FOR R1 SRI.MANU V. FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).34144/2007 -------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. According to the petitioner, he owns 10 cents of land in Survey No.1702/2 of Pangappara Villae which he acquired by sale deed No.533/88. It is stated that the 2nd respondent trespassed into his land and was constructing a building. He moved the Civil Court and the writ petition was dismissed. The appeal filed was also dismissed. Thereafter, he filed R.S.A.No.923/2004 before this Court which is stated to be pending. Petitioner states that, on his complaint the Panchayat has stopped construction at the instance of the 2nd respondent, by issuing Exts.P3 and P4 and that ignoring Exts.P3 and P4, construction work was going on. It is in these circumstances, he filed this writ petition mainly complaining against the continued construction at the instance of the 2nd respondent in spite of Exts.P3 and P4. 2. According to the 2nd respondent, property has been in the possession of his family since the days of his father. It is stated that there is already a building and that he only W.P.(C).34144/07 2 attempted to repair the building. It is also his case that he applied for a building permit and that on account of the failure of the 1st respondent, a deemed building permit has accrued in his favour. 3. After the writ petition was filed, taking note of the allegations made by the petitioner, this Court passed an interim order dated 16.7.2009 directing the 4th respondent to inspect the land and file a report, as to whether any construction activity was still going on. Accordingly, affidavit dated 23.7.2009 has been filed reporting that on inspection, he did not notice any construction activity going on. 4. As already stated, the complaint of the petitioner is that in spite of Exts.P3 and P4, construction activity at the instance of the 2nd respondent is going on, ignoring the aforesaid orders. If these orders are in force, necessarily the 1st respondent is bound to implement the orders and the 2nd respondent is bound to comply with the same. Therefore so long as Exts.P3 and P4 are in force, 2nd respondent cannot continue the work. W.P.(C).34144/07 3 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 4 to ensure that Exts.P3 and P4 are complied with by the 2nd respondent, so long as the said orders are in force. 6. Petitioner may produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 1 and 4 for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs