DINESAN A. Vs. VETTOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue raised in this writ petition is whether the road leading to the fourth respondent Temple, passing by the house of the petitioner, belongs to the fourth respondent Temple or the Grama Panchayat. Secondly, can the arch put up by the fourth and fifth respondents on the road, assuming the road to belong to the temple, be justified in the absence of any valid building permission from the Grama Panchayat or from the District Collector, if the structure has any religious relevance The petitioner, a resident of the first respondent Grama Panchayat, is a person, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, professing faith in the Hindu religion. In front of his house, beginning at the junction of the public road leading up to the Temple and beyond, with a width of six meters on an average and 0.47 Kms up to the Temple, is a public road, which vests in the first respondent Grama Panchayat. The grievance of the petitioner is that without any manner of right or justification, the fourth and fifth respondents began raising an arch constricting the passage to four meters from eight meters, as seen from Ext. P1 set of photographs.

(2.) Alarmed at the developments, the petitioner and others of the area are said to have submitted Ext. P2 complaint, dated 16/03/2014, to the first respondent, who in turn, acting on the said complaint, issued Ext. R1(a) stop memo. Despite the same, when the respondents 4 and 5 continued with the construction, the petitioner is also said to have submitted Ext. P3 complaint before the second respondent on 20/03/2014. Eventually, he filed the present writ petition.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has essentially raised a question of ownership. He has contended that the property, being a public road, is vested with the Grama Panchayat, for it stood reflected in Ext. R1 (d), the Asset Register maintained by the first respondent Grama Panchayat. In furtherance of his submissions, the learned counsel would contend that Clause (m) and Clause (cc) of Rule 2 of Kerala Panchayat Raj Building Rules ('the Rules' for brevity) define 'building' and 'road' respectively in very expansive terms. According to him, even a structure in the nature of a hoarding can be treated as a building requiring compliance with the statutory regulations. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Vimal Arakkal v. Corporation of Cochin, 2005 1 KerLT 121 and Sugil v. Sadanandan,2005 3 KerLJ 237.