JAMES JACOB Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in the writ petition are aggrieved with Exhibit P7, passed by the Panchayat, with respect to parking of vehicles within its local limits.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners took me through the various judgments with respect to the parking of autorickshaws and taxies in the 2nd respondent-Panchayat. The 2nd respondent, considering the congestion due to the parking of autorickshaws and taxies, had decided to acquire 46 cents of land for setting up a taxi stand. The acquisition was challenged by the land owners, which eventually culminated in Exhibit P4 judgment of the Division Bench wherein the land owner's move against the acquisition of 46 cents was rejected. The Panchayat acquired the 46 cents of property and intended construction of a building, with the same area as the building that was existing in the said property, to house the office of the Panchayat, so as to shift it from the old building and also provide for public facilities to the taxi operators and the general public. The said action was challenged by the taxi operators in a writ petition, which, along with an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners herein, were considered by a learned Single Judge.

(3.) The Panchayat, in the writ petition filed by the taxi operators, contended that they do not intend to construct all over the entire acquired property and intends to construct a new building with the same area as the existing dilapidated structure which remained in the acquired land at the time of acquisition. The writ petition filed by the taxi operators was, hence, disposed of recording the undertaking of the Panchayat, by Exhibit P5.