DILEEP T.M. Vs. ARYAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is Senior Citizen and chronic Diabetic patient coupled with other old age deceases. The petitioner purchased a property to an extent of 8 1/2 cents in the Komalapuram Village within the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent Panchayath, during the year 2014. There was an old roof sheet shed annexed to the old residential building constructed around 20 years back in the above said property intended for stocking firewood and for rice cooking purpose for the family need. Since the petitioner was suffering from old age deceases, he was using the ordinary stove in the old shed instead of gas stove for cooking rice. During the year 2018, the petitioner demolished the old residential building situated in the property and constructed a new building, where the old building situated in the property and constructed a new building, where the old business was situated. However, the petitioner retained the old shed and the ordinary stove for stoking the fire-wood and cooking essential food by using the fire wood. The second respondent was keeping always enimical approach towards the Writ Petitioner and his family and was making nuisance for the writ petitioner. He was used to utter such vulgar and abusive words and threatening the petitioner and family with dare consequences. In order to curtail/reduce the nuisance and prevent threat from the 2 nd respondent, the petitioner filed Exhibit P1 complaint before the North Police Station, Alappuzha. The police warned the 2 nd respondent and informed the 2nd respondent not to create any further nuisance to the writ petitioner. Based on the jealousy in the above issue, the 2 nd respondent filed a false complaint before the 1 st respondent Panchayath alleging that the roof sheeted shed existed in the property of the petitioner at the time of purchase was unauthorized and Secretary, dancing with the tune of the 2 nd respondent and without considering reality issued Exhibit P2 notice to demolish the old shed causing no obstruction to the 2 nd respondent. Since it is a roof sheeted shed annexed to the old building, no separate permission was required under the Panchayath Raj Act to retain the same. On receipt of Exhibit P2, the petitioner made Exhibit P3 reply before the secretary to consider the petitioner's grievance as the old shed was existed several years ago and it is not creating any disturbance or nuisance to the 2nd respondent, but based on personal vengeance he is making false complaints. The old stove used for cooking rice is more than 7 meters distance from the 2nd respondent's house and the boundary wall is 3 meters away from the same. It is a densely populated locality, but no one is having any complaint against the shed. But, the 2 nd respondent on extraneous reasons is making false and vexatious complaints. But to the utter dismay of the petitioner, the secretary issued Exhibit P4 stereo typed notice to demolish the shed within 7 days, without hearing the petitioner and without considering the grievances raised in Exhibit P3 objection. Here Exhibit P4 notice is issued without considering the objection raised by the petitioner, without hearing him and it is violation of principles of natural justice. It is issued at the instance of false complaint filed by the 2nd respondent. The above shed and the ordinary stove was therefor several years and it was annexed to the old building situated in the property and which was retained at the time of renovation of old building. No nuisance is caused to the 2 nd respondent and is situated well within the petitioner's property. If it is directed to be demolished, without hearing the petitioner and without considering the objections, the petitioner will be left in the lurch and the petitioner approaches this Hon'ble Court under the shelter of extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Art 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Heard Sri.C.A.Navas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. In the nature of the orders proposed to be passed in this writ petition notice to respondent No.1(Aryad Grama Panchayath) and contesting respondent No.2 will stand dispensed with.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that, the impugned Ext.P4 order dated 29.07.2020 directing the petitioner to demolish the shed in question, has been passed by the 1 st respondent without reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and without even considering the objections and the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P3 objection dated 29.06.2020 and it has been so done on the basis of the objections of the 2nd respondent against which the petitioner had given Ext.P1 complaint to the police authorities concerned.