VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the petitioner, on account of the influence exerted by a neighbouring property owner with the 3rd respondent, ie, Secretary of the Mananthavady Grama Panchayat, got direction issued to the Secretary from the 1st and 2nd respondents also. Anyhow, petitioner was confronted with Ext.P9 notice dated 5.12.2015, whereby, it was intimated that petitioner has carried out construction unauthorisedly by using truss and sheet and therefore, petitioner was directed to remove the same. This is the challenge made in this writ petition.

(2.) In my considered view, if the petitioner was of the opinion that petitioner has not carried out any unauthorized construction, it is for the petitioner to point out the same to the Secretary of the Municipality on receipt of Ext.P9. However, it is evident from the pleadings and the documents produced that, petitioner has not made any such efforts.

(3.) A counter affidavit is filed by the 5 th respondent justifying the stand adopted by the Panchayat on account of the illegal constructions carried out by the petitioner.