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
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.
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
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
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.
