----------------------- The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P12 order passed by the Special Tahsildar, Munnar. It is stated that the petitioner is constructing one more floor which is done in violation of the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.33587 of 2010. The petitioner's case is that he has undertaken only construction based on Ext.P1 permission granted by the Panchayat. He has not encroached upon any Government land and he has constructed the roof only based on Ext.P1 permit. It is also submitted that there is no violation of Ext.P7 judgment of this Court.
2. It is stated in the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent that the petitioner has encroached upon river puramboke for length of 4 meters and width of 5 meters Periyarvarai Bridge in Munnar town. It is further stated that the petitioner nor other building owners on the land under question have obtained patta from the Government in spite of the physical possession. It is further stated that as per the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.33587 of 2010, the petitioner should not carryout any further construction or modification except fixing shutter and door. It is also submitted that the construction activities were in progress on the site in question, so as to make an upper floor for the existing building and to get access to the entire structure from the Munnar G.H.Road lying above. Admittedly Ext.P7 is the judgment between the petitioner and the revenue officials. It is noted that the petitioner is in possession like many other occupants in Munnar and the petitioner shall not be discriminated in the matter of eviction. It was permitted in the above judgment that the petitioner can do some more repairs in front of the shop without interfering others. As per Ext.P7 it is made clear that the petitioner shall not carry out further construction or modification except fixing shutter or doors for safety. The petitioner submits that he has done only the activity as mentioned in Ext.P1 issued by the Panchayat of changing roofs on account of leaking.
Considering the facts and circumstances, the Tahsildar with the assistance of Panchayt authority shall find out whether the petitioner has only changed the roof on account of leaking. If the petitioner has not done anything other than what is permitted under Ext.P7, all action shall be stopped. Further if it is found that the petitioner exceeded the activity other than what is permitted under Ext.P7, necessary action shall be taken to remove such encroachment. Therefore, the Tahsildar shall take a decision and pass appropriate orders in the matter after hearing the petitioner and Panchayat within a period of six weeks after conducting site inspection. Till a decision is taken by the Tahsildar, status quo as on today shall be maintained.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/ A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE jm/