The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit P3 proceeding of the first respondent by which, an application for numbering his building has been rejected. He has been directed to demolish a septic tank that he has constructed and he has been informed that, his application would be considered only after such demolition. According to the petitioner, the order Exhibit P3 has been issued in view of reference No.2 proceedings that are pending before the third respondent. Reliance is placed on Exhibit P1 to contend that, the third respondent has dropped all further proceedings in the matter. 2. The proceedings were initiated by the third respondent Tahsildar on the basis of a complaint submitted by the additional 5th respondent. Therefore, the said person was also directed to be made a party to this writ petition. It was accordingly that the additional 5th respondent was impleaded. However, despite service of notice, he has not entered appearance. There is no appearance for the Panchayat also. A counter affidavit has been filed by the third respondent. According to the third respondent, the petitioner had encroached upon a pathway and built a septic tank on the encroached portion. The same was therefore directed to be demolished. It is stated that, the petitioner has not complied with the said direction. However, Exhibit P1 shows that there is a noting therein by the third respondent that further proceedings were dropped. The said noting is seen to have been made on 04.05.2010. The counter affidavit is filed on 25.11.2013, in which, the stand of the third respondent is that demolition of the petitioner's septic tank has been ordered. The stand of the third respondent is contradictory. Therefore, the actual state of affairs is not at all clear. However, the first respondent would have to ascertain whether the proceedings before the third respondent is pending or not.
If the proceedings have ended in a direction to the petitioner to demolish the septic tank, the said direction would have to be implemented without further delay. If further proceedings have been dropped, there is absolutely no justification for not numbering the building of the petitioner. Therefore, in such an event, the impugned proceedings, Exhibit P3 would have to be issued afresh.
In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
1. The first respondent is directed to ascertain from the third respondent as to whether any orders have been passed on the complaint submitted by the additional 5th respondent against the petitioner. If demolition of the petitioner's septic tank has been ordered, the same would certainly have to be implemented.
2. If the proceedings before the third respondent have been dropped as seen in Exhibit P1, the first respondent shall consider the petitioner's application for numbering his building afresh and appropriate orders shall be passed on the said application within a period of one month of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj