MOHAMMED PARERI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above writ petitions are filed with respect to the same subject matter; being the unauthorised constructions allegedly made by the first petitioner in W.P(C) No. 36380/2015, of two apartment complexes. The buildings are named KBN Apartments and KGN Apartments situated respectively in 33 1/2 and 14 1/2 cents. Petitioners in WP(C) Nos.3851/2016 and 34907/2015 are said to be persons occupying/owning apartments in KBN Apartments. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.14300/2013 is a neighbouring resident of KGN Apartments who is concerned with the pollution caused by the residents for reason of the septic tank and waste water pit being not properly maintained. All the other writ petitions are with respect to the KGN Apartments and the petitioners are said to be owners/occupiers. The owners/occupiers of the apartments challenge the cancellation of numbering of the apartments. The prayer in W.P(C) No.33380/2015 is with respect to the ownership certificate being issued in favour of the six petitioners therein.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the Panchayath would at the outset submit that nothing is produced to establish the ownership of the various apartments in the writ petition except in W.P(C) No.3515/2016 and 36861/2015. But it is not an ownership dispute that comes up for adjudication here and hence there need be no enquiry on that aspect.

(3.) Looking first at the KGN apartment, it is a four storied building (1+3) having 38 flats constructed in a land having extent of 33 1/2 cents. There are said to be 38 apartments in the said building. The issue has its genesis in W.P(C) No.14300/2013 wherein the petitioner, a neighboring resident approached this Court with a prayer to consider the various representations made by him before a host of authorities. The petitioner also prayed for an enquiry under the provisions of Water(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 since the seepage from the septic tank and the waste water pit in the apartment complex is alleged to have contaminated his well. The petitioner also relied on the chemical analysis report, he obtained from the Analytical Laboratory , indicating gross contamination of well water; making it impossible to be used as potable water. While the said writ petition was pending, presumably on the complaint raised therein, the Vigilance wing of the Town Planning Department took up the matter and inspected both the buildings. The vigilance report is produced at Ext.P.17 in WP(C) No.36380/2015.