GEETHA Vs. CHALIYAR GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P3 show cause notice, which directed the construction carried on in the property of the petitioner to be stopped. The petitioner is the owner of 9.5 cents of property comprised in R.S.No.71 of the Akampadam Village and the properties are said to be covered by document No.1754/10 of S.R.O., Nilambur. The case of the petitioner is that she purchased the property for the purpose of constructing a residential building and that she had obtained building permit as per Ext.P1, by which the respondent Panchayath had sanctioned the construction of a building having 128.88 Sq.meters. The petitioner had also obtained an electricity connection for the purpose of carrying on the construction and while the same was continued; Ext.P3 show cause notice was issued. The petitioner contends on the basis of a judgment of this Court in Heera Construction (P) Ltd. v. Corporation of Trivandrum [2008 (3) KLT 553] that the Panchayath is not entitled to cancel the permit which has already been granted.

(2.) THE respondent Panchayath has filed a counter affidavit contending that the property pointed out by the petitioner was not the property in which the construction is now being carried on. It is contended by the Panchayath that the permit itself was issued in 2010 and the petitioner having commenced construction recently, complaints were received from the residents of the locality alleging that filling up of the property has caused depletion of drinking water in the area and the Secretary hence addressed the Agricultural Officer attached to the Chaliyar Krishi Bhavan regarding the allegations raised with respect to the reclamation carried on by the petitioner in the property. It is also stated that the Agricultural Officer in his letter dated 26.4.2012 has reported that the petitioner had shown another plot to obtain the permit.

(3.) IT is not clear as to how the Agricultural Officer can know which property was pointed out by the petitioner; when it was the Secretary of the Panchayath who had visited the property and sanctioned the building permit. Going by the contention of the Panchayath, the show cause notice was issued due to the alleged environmental impact of the reclamation attempted by the petitioner as also the reason that the petitioner has pointed out a different property while the actual application intended and construction activity was carried on in R.S.No.71 of Akampadam Village. The contention that the petitioner started construction recently also does not hold water since the building permit itself is valid for three years from issue.