PANDIKADAN AJEESH Vs. P.K.RAVEENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The captioned appeals are filed against the common judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 28901/2017 and 32377/2017 dated 27.11.2019, disposed of along with two other writ petitions. In W.P. (C)No.28901/2017 appellant was the 3rd respondent and in the other writ petition, appellant was the petitioner, wherein the petitioner in the other writ petition was the 3rd respondent. W.P.(C) No. 28901/2017 was filed by one P.K.Ravindran seeking to implement the order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions passed in Appeal No.616/2016 dated 11.1.2017, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed confirming the order passed by the Secretary of Cherukavu Grama Panchayat under section 235W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act whereas Sri.P.K.Ajesh, who suffered the order of the Tribunal has filed the other W P( C) 32377/2017 to set aside the order of the Tribunal. The learned single Judge after considering the rival submissions has passed the following directions: "

(2.) In effect, the order passed by the Tribunal was upheld, however, directed the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat in W.P.(C) No.28901/2017 filed by Sri.P.K.Ravindran to take appropriate action with respect to offending structures of Sri.P.K.Ajesh in terms of law and after following due procedure; however, clarifying that if Sri.P.K.Ajesh is able to obtain any orders from the competent civil court, then he will be at liberty to approach the Panchayat again and seek permission to either restore the offending structures or to construct fresh ones in terms of the orders that may be issued by the said court in the pending civil suit between Sri.P.K.Ajesh and Sri.P.K.Ravindran. Even though the dismissal of writ petition filed by P.K.Ajesh is challenged in writ appeal No.184.2020, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge since, therein the findings rendered by the tribunal on facts were upheld, and no grounds are made out. Basically the appellant is aggrieved by the observations contained in the judgment in W P(C) No.28901/2017 that if he is succeeding in the civil suit pending by and between the parties then he will be at liberty to approach the Panchayat again and seek permission to either restore the offending structures or to construct fresh ones in terms of the orders. According to the appellant, the said direction of the learned single Judge has the effect of directing the Secretary of the Panchayat to demolish the alleged objectionable structures.

(3.) Anyhow while the writ appeals were pending, the Secretary of the Panchayat has issued notice under section 235W(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, to which the appellant has filed objections and later passed final orders under section 235W (2) (3) & (4) and directed the appellant to demolish the structures, failing which, the Panchayat will do it and recover the cost from the appellant. These are the basic background facts available before us to adjudicate the issues raised by the parties in the appeals.