The dispute in this case relates to the construction of a compound wall by the petitioner. The petitioner is the Manager of a private Pharmacy College. A portion of the compound wall that was in existence had collapsed. But, when the petitioner started proceedings to restore the collapsed portion of the compound wall, it is stated that, as per Ext.P1 stop memo, the construction was stopped by the first respondent Panchayat. The allegation in Ext.P1 is that, the compound wall was being constructed encroaching upon a public road. 2. In the face of the above contention, the petitioner had approached the third respondent with a request to have his property measured. Accordingly a measurement was conducted and by Ext.P3, the third respondent has informed the petitioner as well as the second respondent that there is no objection to the compound wall being constructed as proposed. In spite of the above, the petitioner has been issued with Exts.P6 and P7. The said proceedings have been issued after Ext.P4 application for building permit was submitted by the petitioner. It is contended that, initially the petitioner had started construction of the collapsed compound wall without obtaining any permission from the Panchayat. As per Exts.P6 and P7, the petitioner has been informed that, since the Panchayat has objections regarding the manner in which the measurement was conducted, they had submitted an appeal to the fourth respondent, which is pending. Therefore, the petitioner's application could be considered only after the matter was finally decided by the fourth respondent.
3. According to the learned Senior Advocate Sri.Kurian George Kannanthanam, who appears for the petitioner, the petitioner has done everything necessary to ensure that, the restoration of the compound wall is completed expeditiously. In the absence of the compound wall, it is contended that the College is facing a lot of problems with the pedestrians using the compound itself as a thoroughfare. In view of the above, it is absolutely necessary that the collapsed wall is restored without delay.
4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent producing Exts.R2(a) to R2(c) documents. Ext.R2(b) is stated to be the appeal filed that has been preferred before the fourth respondent. According to Adv.T.P.Pradeep who appears for respondent 1 to 3, the proposed compound wall if permitted, would reduce the width of the road at the portion where it passes the compound of the petitioner. It is only for the said reason that the Panchayat has objected to the construction. They only want a proper measurement to be conducted and finalised by the fourth respondent. I have heard the learned Government Pleader who appears for the fourth respondent. According to the learned Government Pleader, Ext.R2(b) is not a proper appeal that could be considered for any purpose by the fourth respondent.
5. Having heard the counsel appearing for the respective parties, I am satisfied that a proper measurement by the fourth respondent with notice to all the parties would resolve the entire controversy one way or the other. It is necessary that such a measurement is conducted without any further delay, considering the fact that the property of the petitioner is lying vacant without any security for the College.
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the fourth respondent to issue notice to the petitioner as well as respondents 1, 2 and 3 notifying a date for measurement of the property of the petitioner as well as the road in question and to conduct the said measurement. The parties shall abide by the measurement so conducted by the fourth respondent. The second respondent shall grant necessary permission to the petitioner to construct the compound wall immediately on such measurement being conducted. It is directed that the measurement shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within an outer limit of one month from today.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE.
rkc.