MENOTHUKAVU BHAGAVATHI TEMPLE Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, which is stated to be the Managing Committee of a Temple by name 'Sree Menothukavu Bhagavathi Temple' at Perinjanam, has approached this Court impugning Exts.P12 and P13, as per which, the building constructed by them as an 'Oottupura' (Community Dining Hall) has been directed to be demolished, because it has been constructed illegally and the petitioner did not take sufficient steps to have it regularized in spite of the directions to do so in Ext.P12.

(2.) The petitioner says that the conditions imposed in Ext.P12 are impossible of performance now, since there is a boundary dispute between them and the 3 rd respondent, on the basis of which, a Suit, numbered as O.S.No.124/2018, is pending before Sub Court, Irinjalakuda. They say that the conditions in Ext.P12 can be complied with by them only after the said Suit is decreed one way or the other. They say that they are making these submissions because, as is evident from Ext.P12, they have been asked to obtain the consent of the 3 rd respondent, since the toilet complex with respect to the 'Oottupura' has been constructed on the boundary but that this boundary, is under dispute in the Civil Suit. They contend that, therefore, if the boundaries are fixed as per the directions in the Civil Suit, then obviously, all the other conditions in Ext.P12 will be easy to be complied with but not otherwise. The petitioner, therefore, prays that Exts.P12 and P13 be set aside and the Panchayat be directed to provisionally number the building, subject to the final decree in the Suit.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the 3 rd respondent however, opposes the above plea very vehemently saying that, as of now, the construction made by the petitioners encroach into his client's property and that its plumbing lines are also virtually laid within his property. He however, concedes that there is a dispute between his client and the petitioner with respect to the boundary of the property and that the afore mentioned Suit is still pending. He says that therefore, until the Suit is decreed, the Panchayat cannot allow the constructions to be occupied by the petitioner.