POKKER A Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An arch was constructed by the Mambatta Shiva Temple on a public road. Alleging that the said construction on the public road is illegal and causes nuisance, an application was preferred before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Palakkad. Pursuant to a conditional order, the learned Magistrate confirmed the order directing the removal of the arch. In a revision petition preferred by the president of the temple before the Sessions Court, the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate was set aside and the case was remanded for fresh consideration. In this criminal revision petition preferred by the applicant (complainant) before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the order of the learned Sessions Judge is impugned.

(2.) The revision petitioner alleges that immediately to the eastern side of his residence, a panchayat road is in existence which leads to the Mambatta Shiva Temple, having a width of 4.15 metres. It is alleged that the road was widened by the nearby residents including the revision petitioner, relinquishing their rights over a portion of their property. However, after the road was widened and concreted using the MLA Funds, the temple committee, under the leadership of its president, is alleged to have illegally constructed a semicircular arch at the beginning of the Panchayat road, thereby disturbing vehicular access. It was also alleged that the width of the road has been reduced to 3.65 metres and the arch even causes danger and trouble to the nearby residents.

(3.) Despite repeated complaints to the Panchayat, no action was initiated and finally a complaint was filed under Sec. 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C') before the Sub Divisional Magistrate seeking removal of the obstruction erected on the Panchayat road. The complaint was numbered as M.P. No.2 of 2021. The learned Sub Divisional Magistrate obtained reports from the Panchayat Secretary stating that the arch was constructed illegally without getting any permission and also that the road which was constructed by the Panchayat has been reduced in its width due to the construction of the arch. The report also mentions that the revision petitioner himself had relinquished rights over a portion of his property for the purpose of widening the road.