IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2011 / 5TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 14623 of 2011(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- ABOOBACKER,S/O.POCKER HAJI, PARAMMEL AMBADY,KARIPPUR, MALAPPURAM DIST BY ADV. MR.G.HARIHARAN MR.PRAVEEN.H. RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. PALLICKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALLICKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN-673653 2. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMETN (ROADS AND BRIDGES) KONDOTTI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT,PIN-673638 ADV. MR.E.NARAYANAN FOR R1 MR.M.MUHAMMED SHAFI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 14623 of 2011(C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: APPLICATION DATED 16.3.2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING PERMISSION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMPOUND WALL BEFORE R1. EXT.P2: NOTICE DTD. 11.5.2011ISSUED BY R1 AGAINST THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL ........ // TRUE COPY // P.A TO JUDGE. HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.14623 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 27th day of July, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P2 notice and for a direction directing the first respondent to afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard before taking any action against the alleged encroachment on the public road in front of his property as alleged in Ext.P2 notice. 2. The 1st respondent Panchayath issued Ext.P2 notice dated 11.5.2011 stating that the petitioner encroached a portion of the road in front of his property by making construction and therefore, directed the petitioner not to proceed with the construction. According to the petitioner, he had applied for permission for the construction of the compound wall on the eastern side of his property. Ext.P1 is the said application. Ext.P1 is dated 16.3.2011. It is averred in the writ petition that no action was taken by the Panchayath on Ext.P1 application even after a lapse of one month from the date of filing of such application. It is further stated that the petitioner had ::2:: W.P.(C).No.14623 Of 2011 constructed the basement for putting up a compound wall on the eastern side of his property in the same alignment in which the neighbours have constructed the compound wall. 3. The learned counsel for the Panchayath submits that Ext.P1 application was not submitted before the Panchayath and no application for grant of permit is pending consideration before the Panchayath. The learned counsel submits that for the purpose of putting up of a compound wall an application under Section 235(f) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act has to be submitted before the Panchayath. In this case, no such application has been filed till date. According to the learned counsel for the Panchayath the application produced as Ext.P1 is not the application submitted before the Panchayath. 4. It is a fact that the petitioner was neither afforded an opportunity of being heard before issuing Ext.P2 notice. If the averments in the writ petition, that the petitioner propose to construct the compound wall within his property, is true there is no necessity to proceed against the petitioner if Ext.P1 is pending. Therefore, for the purpose of deciding the question ::3:: W.P.(C).No.14623 Of 2011 finally, it is just and necessary that the petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard. 5. In these circumstances, there will be a direction to the first respondent to take a final decision in the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and after making necessary enquiries. A decision shall be taken within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment in accordance with law. If the petitioner has not filed any application for building permit till date, the petitioner is at liberty to submit an application in the prescribed form and in that event, the Secretary of the Panchayath shall consider and dispose of the application in accordance with law. The parties shall main status quo as on today till a final decision is taken by the Secretary of the Panchayath. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-