C K GOPI Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P3 order dated 19.2.2014 passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. The fifth respondent herein filed Appeal No.635 of 2013 before the Tribunal challenging the order bearing No.A1 -30/11 dated 26.6.2013 passed by the fourth respondent herein to demolish the construction effected in the property comprised in Re -survey No.18/1 -1 (old survey No.231/1) of Ettumanoor village in Kottayam District. Evidently, a provisional order was passed by the third respondent earlier against the 5th respondent at the instance of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner before respondents 3 and 4 that led to issuance of the order dated 26.6.2013 was that under the guise of carrying out renovation works the fifth respondent had been making new construction. After considering the contentions of the appellant/5th respondent the Tribunal passed the impugned order setting aside the order dated 26.6.2013 for demolishing the constructions and directed the respondent therein viz., the 4th respondent herein to pass fresh orders by taking into consideration the reply submitted by the appellant therein (5th respondent herein) in the proceedings that culminated in the order dated 26.6.2013 and also taking into account the category of the building and the nature of construction actually effected by him.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is a nearby resident of the property belonging to the 5th respondent whereon the construction involved in the dispute was effected. The contention of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent constructed a new double storied commercial building after demolishing the existing old building bearing No. VI/3456 on the southern side of M.C.Road, in the property comprised in the aforementioned survey number. The further contentions of the petitioner are as hereunder: -

(3.) EARLIER , with a request to prevent the 5th respondent from effecting construction in question and also to revoke permit, if any, granted for effecting such construction the petitioner filed Ext.P1 representation. The said complaint culminated in provisional and final orders carrying directions to the 5th respondent and also the alleged purchaser of appurtenant building and thereupon, they challenged those orders successfully before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Obviously, the said appeals were allowed as per Ext.P2 as hereunder: -