Kerala High Court
Sivaprasad vs Muthukulam Grama Panchayat on 22 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 19264 OF 2013
NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PETITIONER:
SIVAPRASAD, AGED 40 YEARS,
S/O.SIVADARSAN, M.S.NIVAS, WARD NO.X, MUTHUKULAM SOUTH
P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690506.
BY ADV SRI.A.SHAFEEK (KAYAMKULAM)
NAME AND ADDRESS OF THERESPONDENT:
MUTHUKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUTHUKULAM GRAMA
PANCHAYAT, MUTHUKULAM, ALAPPUZHA-690506.
BY ADV SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 19264 OF 2013
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.19264 of 2013
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2022
JUDGMENT
The above Writ Petition is filed with the following
prayers:
"(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate
writ or order setting aside Exts. P6 and P9;
(ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other
appropriate writ or order compelling the respondents
to permit the petitioner to complete the finishing
works in the bridge; and
(iii) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of
justice."[SIC]
2. According to the petitioner, he is the owner
and in exclusive possession of 69.26 Ares of property in
Survey No.633 of Muthukulam village. In between the
petitioner's property and PWD road there is a thodu
which flows to Kayamkulam Kayal. By Ext.P3 decision
dated 23/9/2011 the respondent granted permission to
WP(C) NO. 19264 OF 2013
construct a bridge across the thodu to the property of
the petitioner from PWD road as per Ext.P1 plan
submitted by the petitioner. It is the case of the
petitioner that, he started construction as per Ext.P1
plan on 7/2/2013 and at that stage the respondent
issued Ext.P6 order to stop the construction forthwith
and directed the petitioner to demolish the construction
already made. The reason stated in Ext.P6 is that the
construction of the bridge is not in the property in which
the Panchayat granted the permission. Challenging
Ext.P6, the petitioner filed Ext.P7 appeal before the
Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The
tribunal by Ext.P9 order held that the respondent failed
to produce any document to show that the construction
is being done at a place away from the site to which the
permit was taken. But the Tribunal dismissed the appeal
on the ground that the basement construction on the
bed of the thodu is obstructing the free flow of water.
Aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
WP(C) NO. 19264 OF 2013
3. Heard counsel appearing for the petitioner and
the counsel appearing for the respondent Panchayath.
4. When this writ petition came up for
consideration on 02.08.2013, this Court stayed the
impugned order and the interim order is in force even
now.
5. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted
that the only reason mentioned in Ext.P6 stop memo is
that the petitioner is constructing the bridge 100 meters
away from the proposed site. The counsel submitted
that, in the light of Ext.R1(a) and also in the light of
Ext.P9 order, it is clear that the petitioner constructed
the bridge in the proposed site itself. The only reason to
reject the appeal by the Tribunal is that the free flow of
water is obstructed. That is not a reason mentioned in
Ext.P6. Now, admittedly, the construction of the bridge
is already over. Ext.P10 is the photographs. If that is
the case, the respondent Panchayath can inspect the
place with notice to the petitioner and if there is any
WP(C) NO. 19264 OF 2013
obstruction for free flow of water, necessary remedial
measures can be directed to be taken by the petitioner.
To facilitate the Panchayath to pass fresh orders, Exts.P6
and P9 can be quashed.
Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of in the
following manner:
i. Exts.P6 and P9 are set aside.
ii. The respondent Panchayath will inspect the
bridge constructed by the petitioner based on Ext.P3
permit with notice to the petitioner.
iii. If there is any obstruction for the free flow
of water, the respondent Panchayath is free to inform
the petitioner to take remedial measures and the
petitioner will do the needful.
Sd/
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
DM JUDGE
WP(C) NO. 19264 OF 2013
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 19264/2013
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD,
KAYAMKULAM
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO. 9(1) DATED
23/9/2011 OF THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOC ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
OFFICER, MUTHUKULAM
EXHIBIT P5 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
BASEMENT.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 7/2/2013
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL NO. 156/2013 FILED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED
BY THE RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 5/7/2013 OF
THE TRIBUNAL 27 33 FOR LOCAL SELF
GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT P10 PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
BRIDGE
EXHIBIT P11 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTED BY
THE PWD
EXHIBIT P12 PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BRIDGE CONSTRUCTED BY
THE RESPONDENT
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS : NIL
//TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE
