The petitioner is the owner in possession of 1.11 Ares of land comprised in Survey No.260/23 of Kizhakkambalam Village. After effecting construction the petitioner submitted an application for numbering the shop room. Thereafter, the Panchayat required the petitioner to submit the location sketch, possession certificate etc. of the property. Subsequently, the petitioner received Ext.P4 notice from the first respondent. Pursuant to its receipt the petitioner appeared before the first respondent and explained the position. It is submitted that there is no violation of the provisions under Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short `the Act'). Despite the explanation offered by him the Panchayat refused to number the building and that constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the captioned writ petition mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent to assign number to the building constructed by the petitioner in the property covered by Ext.P1. When this matter came up before this Court on 13.10.2006 this Court issued a direction to the first respondent to assign provisional number to the building already constructed by the petitioner. It was further clarified that the numbering of the building would be provisional and would be subject to further orders passed by this Court.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent and also the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.
3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that after receipt of the application for assignment of building number from the petitioner the first respondent received certain complaints from the neighbours including the second respondent herein. Essentially, their grievance pertains to violation of the provisions under Section 220(b) of the Act. To ascertain the verity of the complaints filed by such persons the first respondent requested the Taluk Surveyor to effect measurement. The learned standing counsel for the first respondent submitted that in the said circumstances, liberty may be given to the first respondent to consider the issue as to whether there is any violation of Section 220(b) of the Act by the petitioner while effecting the disputed construction and if so, to take appropriate action in accordance with law, after considering the complaints preferred by the second respondent and others. In this context, it is to be noted that even while passing the interim order directing the first respondent to provisionally assign the building number this Court made it clear that the said order would be subject to further orders and there cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that the Secretary of the first respondent Panchayat is competent to and in fact, duty bound to consider the grievance relating violation of Section 220(b) of the Act. Obviously, in this case, the second respondent and certain others have preferred complaints before the Secretary of the first respondent raising the question of violation of Section 220(b) by the petitioner herein. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Secretary of the first respondent to pass appropriate orders on the application submitted by the petitioner for assignment of building number and while considering the same look into the grievances of the second respondent and the others regarding the violation of Section 220(b) of the Act. Needless to say that for deciding the said question if the assistance of the Taluk Surveyor is required and for which the first respondent ordered to take steps, it could be obtained. With the help of the Taluk Surveyor the first respondent shall cause the measurement and then take a decision in the matter expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. It is made clear that if any addition is made by the petitioner to the structure which was already completed in other words, if the petitioner has effected any construction during the pendency of this writ petition, it would be open to the first respondent to consider whether there is any violation of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules in respect of such additional construction and if so, it would be open to the first respondent to take action, in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation on merits.
Sd/-
C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS