JOBY ABRAHAM Vs. KARIMKUNNAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges Ext.P9 order by which Ext.P2 application submitted by him seeking a building permit was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not left the side yard of 1.5 meters from the passage. In other words, the Panchayat had directed the petitioner to exclude the private passage which is owned by the petitioner from being reckoned for the purposes of setback under Rule 23(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the passage in question is included in the petitioner's deed and he is the owner in possession and enjoyment and he had only permitted the 3rd respondent to use the same as a way.

(2.) Ext.P9 states that the petitioner had demarcated the pathway which has been used by others. There were complaints about the attempt of the petitioner to prevent the usage of the pathway. A counter has been filed on behalf of the Panchayat stating that, the passage in question is being used by the locals and the attempt of the petitioner has been to prevent the same. It is also stated that, at any rate, these are all disputed questions of fact that cannot be decided in a Writ Petition.

(3.) Heard Sri. Georgekutty Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.George Mathew, learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat.