Kerala High Court
Babu Paul vs Angamaly Municipality on 27 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 26587 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
BABU PAUL,
AGED 42 YEARS
AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. PAULOSE, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE,
EAST NAGAR DESOM, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM, DISTRICT,
PIN-683572
BY ADVS.
A.T.ANILKUMAR
V.SHYLAJA
RESPONDENTS:
1 ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ANGAMALY SOUTH
P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN-683572
2 THE SECRETARY,
ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY, ANGAMALY P.O., ERNAKULAM
DISTRICT, PIN-683572
3 THE REVENUE DIVISION OFFICER,
FORTKOCHI, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682001
4 JUSTINE P.A.,
S/O. AVARACHAN, AGED 46 YEARS, PADAYATTIL HOUSE,
EAST NAGAR, WARD.NO.8, ANGAMALLY P.O., ANGAMALLY
SOUTH, PIN-683572
5 GEROGE P.O.,
S/O. OUSEPH, AGED 45 YEARS, PADAYATTIL HOUSE,
EAST NAGER, WARD NO.8, ANGAMALY P.O., ANGAMALY
SOUTH, PIN-683572
BY ADVS.
ANIL K.MUHAMED
VIVEK VENUGOPAL
K.B.ARUNKUMAR
RANJIT BABU
WP(C) NO.26587 OF 2016
-: 2 :-
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.BIMAL K NATH-SR.GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
----------------------
WP(C).No.26587 of 2016
-------------------------------
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2024
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to take action against respondents 4 and 5 on the basis of Exts.P2 and P3 reports and sketch therein within a time limit. The Direction to 2nd respondent was sought to demolish the boundary wall constructed by the 4 th respondent on public road.
2. Though the writ petition was filed as early as on 09/08/2016, the 1st respondent has not filed any counter affidavit. The 4th respondent has filed a counter affidavit dated 24/06/2024 in this matter. According to the 4th respondent, he was given Exhibit R4(a) Approved Plan and thereafter he received a communication dated 26/10/2015 stating that, the building Permit is to be -: 2 :- WP(C) NO.26587 OF 2016 returned within 7 days on the complaint of petitioner and other persons.
3. The 4th respondent submitted Exhibit R4(c) reply dated 11/01/2016 stating that he is making construction strictly within his property and the petitioner is making allegation on account of personal rivalry. In Exhibit R4(c) Office Note of the 1 st respondent dated 18/11/2018, it is seen that, the stand of the 1 st respondent-Municipality is that, there is nothing to show that the 4th respondent is constructing compound wall encroaching into the Road.
4. I heard Sri.A.T.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Anil K Muhmed, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st and 2nd respondents, Sri.Bimal K Nath, the learned Senior Government Pleader for the 3 rd respondent and Sri.Vivek Venugopal the counsel for the 4th respondent.
-: 3 :-WP(C) NO.26587 OF 2016
5. The counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that, the Municipality has issued communication to the Taluk Surveyor, Aluva to conduct a Survey as early as on 05/02/2016 in the presence of the parties and the same is not done till this date.
6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, Exhibit P2 communication and Exhibit P3 Survey Sketch prepared by the Taluk Surveyor is sufficient for the 1 st respondent-Municipality to take action. Exhibit P3 communication dated 06/01/2016 is addressed to the Secretary of the 1st respondent. When Exhibit P3 communication is received by the 1 st respondent, the 1st respondent is duty bound to implement the same as early as possible. The 4th respondent has no case that, Exhibit P3 communication is varied or modified. The 1st respondent-Municipality can not wash off its hands stating that it has submitted an application dated -: 4 :- WP(C) NO.26587 OF 2016 05/02/2016 for survey.
7. The counsel for the petitioner made available a reply dated 21/01/2019 under the RTI Act in which it is stated that, the proceedings against the illegal construction is still pending.
8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent-Municipality to take action on Exhibit P3 communication addressed to its Secretary, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, if the same is not varied or modified.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM JUDGE rsr -: 5 :- WP(C) NO.26587 OF 2016 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26587/2016 RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit-R4(a) True photo copy of the approved proposed extension plan of the residential building of this respondent Exhibit-R4(b) True photo copy of the notice issued by the 2nd respondent dated 26.10.2015 Exhibit-R4(c) True photo copy of the reply issued by the 4th respondent dated 11.01.2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHERS TO THE 3RD RESPODNENT.
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR, ALUVA TO THE SUB COLLECTOR, FORTKOCHI DATED 6.1.2016.
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED
BY THE ADDITIONAL TAHSILDAR TO
SECRETARY, ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY ALONG WITH THE SKETCH DATED 6.1.2016.