MUHAMMED RAFI Vs. CHAVAKKAD MUNICIPALITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are landlord and tenant respectively. 1 st petitioner has purchased an extent of 7.48 Ares of property situate in Survey No.194/1 of Chavakkad Village by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed. According to the petitioners, 2 nd petitioner carried out the construction of a shed in the said property after securing permit and the permit was extended twice. However, Municipality initiated action as per Sections 406(1) and 406 (2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1994 for short) and has finally passed an order evident from Ext.R2 (c).

(2.) It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not preferred any appeal against Ext.R2 (c). However, according to the petitioner, action was initiated by the 2 nd respondent, since the property in which the shed was constructed, is situated in a paddy field, covered so by the revenue records as well as in BTR. Thereupon, petitioner has now submitted Ext.P10 application before the 3rd respondent seeking permission for utilisation of the property for other purposes other than paddy cultivation and agricultural operations. WP(C).No. 22385 of 2018

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that a situation would suffice if a direction is issued to the 3 rd respondent to finalise the proceedings as per Ext.P10 within a time frame and till such time coercive action contemplated as per Ext.R2 (c) may be directed to be kept in abeyance.