Baburaj K.R vs Chittattukara Grama Panchayat
2022 Latest Caselaw 7245 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
   THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 2ND ASHADHA, 1944
                   WP(C) NO. 4199 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

          BABURAJ K.R., AGED 59 YEARS
          S/O.(LATE) KRISHNAN, KADEPARAMBIL (H),
          CHERIYAPALANTHURUTH, THOOYITHARA,
          NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM-683513.
          BY ADVS.
          MITHUN C THOMAS
          SHRI.AKSHAY JOSEPH ADHIKARAM
          SMT.MIDHUNAMOL T.S.
          SMT.SHARIKA SIVAN

RESPONDENTS:

    1     CHITTATTUKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT
          REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEENDOOR,
          VADAKKEKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM-683522.
    2     ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
          LSGD SECTION, CHITTATTUKARA, VADAKKEKARA P.O.,
          ERNAKULAM-683522.
    3     VASANTHI GOPI,
          AGED 75 YEARS
          W/O.LATE GOPI, PAYYAPILLY HOUSE, THOOYITHARA,
          PALLANTHURUTH, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM-683513.
          BY ADVS.
          SHRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH, SC,GRAMA PANCHAYAT
          GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 23.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C).No.4199/2021

                                      2




                   P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                    --------------------------------
                    W.P.(C).No.4199 of 2021
             ----------------------------------------------
            Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2022


                              JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed with following prayers:

i. Issue a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate Writ, direction or order directing the 1 st respondent to remove the encroachment made by the 3rd respondent in the interests of justice. ii. Direct the respondents to pay the cost of litigation.

iii. Issue such other Writs, directions or orders as this Hon'ble Court may feel just and necessary in the interests of Justice.

(SIC)

2. The main prayer of the petitioner is to remove the

encroachment made by the 3rd respondent.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent.

4. The 1st respondent filed a counter affidavit in this

case. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the

counter affidavit:

W.P.(C).No.4199/2021

"4. Immediately, based on the aforesaid representation the disputed site was inspected by the 2nd respondent, Assistant Engineer and a report was submitted. The true copy of the said report submitted by 2nd respondent to the 1" respondent dated 07/03/2020 is produced as Exhibit R1(a). It is submitted that, as the said report was not specific and lacked clarity yet another report was called for from the 2nd respondent. The true copy of the 2nd report dated 28/05/2022 submitted by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent is produced as Exhibit R1(b). In order to obtain more clarity as to the alleged encroachment, a further report was called for from the 2nd respondent. The true copy of the 3rd report dated 03/06/2022 submitted by the 2nd respondent to the 1st respondent is produced as Exhibit R1(c).

5. In the aforesaid three reports submitted by the 2nd respondent Assistant Engineer, there is no mention regarding the alleged encroachment. As per the report, under rule 23(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 the requirement of splay is not required in case where the width of the road is less than 5 meters. As per the reports of the 2nd respondent, the width of the road is less than 5 meters.

6. Furthermore, a site' inspection was conducted by the deponent Secretary of the Panchayat on 03/06/2022 and it is found that there is no W.P.(C).No.4199/2021

encroachment to the Pallath-Kadeparambu road as alleged by the petitioners.

7. In view of the aforesaid reports and Rule 23(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011, the Panchayat is not in a position to take any further action in respect of the complaint made by the petitioner herein, as per the report of the 2 nd respondent as no encroachment could be discovered."

5. In the light of the same, nothing survives in this

case. The Standing Counsel for the Panchayat submitted that

after inspection they convinced that there is no encroachment.

If there is any further grievance to the petitioner, the

petitioner is free to approach the Panchayat authorities

specifically pointing out any further encroachment. With that

observation, this writ petition can be closed.

Therefore, this writ petition is closed recording the

counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent and also allowing

the petitioner to approach the Panchayat if there is any further

encroachment.

sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JV JUDGE W.P.(C).No.4199/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4199/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 29.08.2019 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND OTHER NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY BEARING NO.C2/8343/2018 DATED 04.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT BEARING NO.B2-

2918 DATED 07.03.2020 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R1 A THE TRUE COPY OF THE SAID REPORT SUBMITTED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 7.3.2020 IS PRODUCED AS EXHIBIT R1 (A).

Exhibit R1 B THE TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND REPORT DATED 28.5.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED AS EXHIBIT R1 (B) Exhibit R1 C THE TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD REPORT DATED 3.6.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT IS PRODUCED AS EXHIBIT R1 (C)