The petitioners and the 5th respondent own neighbouring plots of land in Mannamkandam village in Devikulam Taluk. It is the case of the petitioners that the 5th respondent commenced construction activities in May 2010, for extension of the building purchased by him in 2008, without getting any building permit from the 1st respondent Panchayath. Pointing out this fact, they filed Ext.P4 complaint dated 16.06.2010 before the 1st respondent. A similar complaint was also filed before the 3rd respondent. Pursuant thereto, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P5 stop memo to the 5th respondent. It is the contention of the petitioners that, notwithstanding the issuance of a stop memo, the 5th respondent continued with the unauthorised construction and pointing this out to the respondents, the 1st petitioner filed Ext.P6 letter dated 23.06.2010. This was followed by Ext.P8 reminder dated 20.07.2010. It would appear that the 5th respondent filed O.S.No.192 of 2010 before the Munsiff's Court, Devikulam, seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the petitioners from entering the properties of the 5th respondent. A temporary injunction is also stated to have been granted by the Munsiff's Court restraining the petitioners from entering the properties of the 5th respondent. It is the petitioners case that while matters stood thus, the 1st petitioner was informed by Ext.P10 communication dated 02.09.2010 from the 2nd respondent that steps had been initiated under the Land Conservancy Act against the 5th respondent. It is the petitioners case that even thereafter the petitioners continue to carry on business in the portion of the premises that has encroached into the puramboke land and the 1st respondent has also granted a licence to the 5th respondent to enable her to carry on her business in the building. It is under these circumstances that the writ petition has been filed seeking inter alia a direction to the 1st respondent to take steps to demolish the additions/expansion effected to the existing building of the 5th respondent, without obtaining a building permit for the same. There is also a prayer for a direction to respondents 2 to 4 to take suitable action against the 5th respondent in connection with the illegal encroachment on public road and puramboke land.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 5th respondent wherein the sequence of events leading to the filing of the suit against the petitioners, as also the details of the property, are narrated. It is vehemently maintained that the building in which she is carrying on business is not situated on puramboke land and therefore the allegations of the petitioners in the writ petition are without any basis.
3. I have heard Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri.S.Jiji, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent.
4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, I am of the view that the contentions raised in the writ petition, being stoutly denied by the 5th respondent, the matter requires a factual verification at the hands of the respondents in the writ petition. The case of the petitioners essentially is that the 5th respondent has effected constructions that are in the nature of additions/extension to the building that was originally owned by her. It is their case that the additional constructions have resulted in the 5th respondent encroaching into Puramboke land and further, carrying on business in premises in respect of which building permit was not granted by the Panchayath. These aspects need to be verified by the respondents and if found to be true, appropriate action has to be initiated by the respondents against the 5th respondent, after affording the 5th respondent an opportunity of being heard prior to initiating any action against him.
Resultantly, the writ petition is disposed with a direction to the 1st respondent Panchayath to consider the representation preferred by the petitioners alleging illegal construction effected by the respondents and pass appropriate orders thereon within period of one month from the date of a receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioners and the 5th respondent. Similarly, respondents 2 to 4 shall ascertain whether there is any encroachment occasioned by the 5th respondent to puramboke land and, if found to be so, then immediate action shall be taken in terms of the Land Conservancy Act to evict the 5th respondent from the encroached area. The proceedings under the Land Conservancy Act shall, if found necessary, be initiated by the respondents after giving due notice to the 5th respondent and after hearing her prior to initiating proceedings under the aforementioned Act. Respondents 2 to 4 shall make the enquiry, as directed above, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
With these directions the writ petition is disposed.
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns