IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2010 / 29TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20275 of 2010(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- RANI STANLEY, W/O.STANLEY, KUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, KALLIMEL P.O., PIN-690 570, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN SRI.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHERIYANAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, CHERIYANAD P.O., PIN-689 511, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. P.RAVEENDRAN, MAVINATTU PUTHENVEEDU, MAMPRA, PIN-689 511, (VIA) CHERIYANAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, RANNI, PIN-689 672. ADV. SRI.N.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R2 GOVT.PLEADER SHRI A.J.VARTHESE FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN W.P.(C)No.20275/10 PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF DOCUMENT NO.804/09 OF SRO, CHERIYANAD EVIDENCING PURCHASE OF PROPERTY MENTIONED ABOVE. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 10.6.10 IN W.P.(C)No. 5553/10. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF COMPLAINT DATED 22.4.10 MADE BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 30.4.10 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT MADE BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT BY THE PETITIONER ON 19.5.10. RESPONDENTS' EXTS: EXT.R2(A): TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE DATED 24.7.09 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF 2ND RESPONDENT'S FATHER. EXT.R2(B): TRUE COPY OF BASIX TAX RECEIPT DATED 21.1.09. EXT.R2(C): TRUE COPY OF OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 24.2.10 ISSUED BY THE CHERIYANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT. EXT.R2(D): TRUE COPY OF LICENCE DATED 20.5.10. EXT.R2(E): TRUE COPY OF CONSENT LETTER GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE CHERIYANAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT. TRUE COPY T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.20275 of 2010 H --------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF JULY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the owner of a property situated in Re- survey Nos.220/12, 220/14 and 220/15 of Cheriyanad Village. The petitioner intends to construct a building for starting an industry and earlier the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.5553/10 and it was disposed of by Exhibit P2 judgment. As per Exhibit P2 judgment, this Court directed the Panchayat to reconsider the matter in accordance with the relevant rules after hearing the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. 2. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner's complaint is with respect to the alleged diversion of rain water from the building of the 2nd respondent, pursuant to which the petitioner has filed a complaint before the Panchayat as per Exhibit P3. It is pointed out in the complaint that the 2nd respondent has effected truss work without getting any permission from the Panchayat, which is causing nuisance to the petitioner. It is further pointed out that the 2nd respondent is conducting a wood based industry W.P.(C)No.20275/10 -2- without getting no objection certificate from the Forest Department. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent is dumping saw dust in front of the property of the petitioner. 3. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit opposing the prayers of the petitioner. It is pointed out that the 2nd respondent has obtained licence for wood planing as per licence dated 20.5.2010, Exhibit R2(d) issued by the Cheriyanad Grama Panchayat. It is also the case of the 2nd respondent that by Exhibit R2(e), the petitioner has given consent to him for the issuance of the said licence. According to him, he is not running any saw mill and he is only a carpenter and carpentry work alone is being done by him. Allegation of any pollution from the Unit is also denied. It is mentioned that it is an SSI Unit run by him. 4. In spite of receipt of notice, the Panchayat has not chosen to appear. Heard the learned Government Pleader who submitted that the 3rd respondent has not granted any NOC to the 2nd respondent to function the Unit. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not given any written consent to the 2nd respondent for starting the Unit and in the reply affidavit the said W.P.(C)No.20275/10 -3- contention has been denied by the petitioner. 6. Therefore, as the complaint of the petitioner with regard to the diversion of rain water in the light of the truss work to his building is pending before the Panchayat, it is upto the Panchayat to consider all aspects which will be done with notice to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. The Panchayat will therefore consider Exhibit P3 representation and the complaint therein will be addressed by the Panchayat with notice to the petitioner and the 2nd respondent. It will conduct due enquiry by deputing a competent officer to conduct a local inspection and based on his report further action will be taken by the Panchayat to consider the grievance of the petitioner. The parties will be heard before any decision is taken by the Panchayat. Appropriate decision will be taken by the Panchayat within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment and the decision will be communicated to the parties. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn