WILSON K. JOHN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed in public interest on the allegation that respondents 8 and 9 are proceeding to construct a commercial building in the property comprised in survey No.663/1 of Pindimana Village encroaching into Puramboke land. It is the case of the petitioner that though in document No.4541/13 of Kothamangalam SRO, respondents 8 and 9 are described that they have acquired title over 2.5 cents of land, the actual extent of property found on survey is only 1.927 cents and that the remaining portion of the property in their occupation is Puramboke land. It is stated that in that property, a building was sought to be constructed relying on Exts.R8(I) and R8(J) , the purported proceedings of the Panchayat and building permit allegedly issued on 30.10.2014. Petitioner referred to the counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent Panchayat, in particular, paragraph</i> 11 there of to contend that the Panchayat has not issued such a permit nor does the records of the Panchayat show that such permit was ever issued. According to him, the Panchayat finally had issued Ext.R8(M) stop memo dated 19.1.2015 stopping further work and that the work remains suspended not only in the light of Ext.R8(M) but also in view of the order dated 20.1.2015 passed by this Court.

(2.) On the other hand, respondents 8 and 9, refer to Ext.R8(I) proceedings of the then Secretary of the Panchayat and Ext.R8(J) building permit issued by the Panchayat on 30.12015 to contend that they are entitled to proceed with the construction work in the property acquired by them as per sale deed No.4541/13 of Kothamangalam SRO. In so far as the denial of the Panchayat of having not issued the building permit, the 10th respondent, the deceased Secretary, who issued the permit has sworn an affidavit to this Court stating that he did issue Ext.R8(I) and (J) and the controversy has been raised by the elected Vice President of the Panchayat on account of certain internal fights.

(3.) From the submissions above noted, it is clear that on the one hand, the petitioner contends that the building construction is without obtaining any valid permit and that respondents 8 and 9 are occupying a portion of the puramboke land, on the other, respondents 8 and 9 are relying on Exts.R8(I) and (J) and also their title deed to assert their entitlement to construct a building and also ownership of the acquired land. These claims are made by respondents 8 and 9 in the affidavit filed before this Court also.