IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

FRIDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2016/25TH AGRAHAYANA, 1938

WP(C).No. 650 of 2016 (E) --------------------------

PETITIONER :

----------------------

PRAVEEN KUMAR, AGED 38, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, POOVATH HOUSE, AKG ROAD, THRIKKAKARA, EDAPALLY P.O., PIN-682 024.

BY ADV. SRI.K.L.JOSEPH

RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------

• 1. ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, NEERIKODE P.O., ALUVA-683 511
• 2. VILLAGE OFFICER, VILLAGE OFFICE ALANGAD, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM-683 511
• 3. KUNJU MUHAMMED, AGED 89, S/O.ALIYAR, NADUVILAPARAMBU, ADIYIRUTHI ROAD, KARINGATHURUTHU, KONGURPALLY P.O., ALANGAD VILLAGE, PARAVUR-683 525
  • R1 BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN R2 BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.K.J.MANURAJ R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.A.ABDUL JABBAR

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-12-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C).No. 650 of 2016 (E) --------------------------------------

APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ---------------------------------------

• EXT.P1. TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING NO.5175/2014
• EXT.P2. TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 20/7/2015 ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY, ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH
• EXT.P3. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED FROM THE PANCHAYATH SHOWING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE COMPLAINT
• EXT.P4. TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 5/1/2015 UNDER RTI ACT
• EXT.P5. TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 5/1/2016 ADDRESSED TO THE SECRETARY, ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH
• EXT.P6. TRUE COPY OF THE BOUNDARY SEPARATING THE PROPERTY OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND THE PANCHAYATH ROAD.

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS -----------------------------------------

EXT.R1(A)	TRUE COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 1ST
	RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED
	19/12/2015

• EXT.R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RETURNED COVER FROM THE PETITIONER
• EXT.R3(1) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE ROAD REGISTER OF THE ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH SHOWING THE WIDTH OF THE DISPUTED ROAD.
• EXT.R3(2) TRUE COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 19/12/2015
• EXT.R3(3) TRUE COPY OF THE PLAN OF THE COMPOUND WALL APPROVED BY THE PANCHAYATH
• EXT.R3(4) TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER, DATED 15/02/2016
• EXT.R3(5) TRUE COPY OF THE COMPOUND WALL SUBMITTED ALONG WITH EXHIBIT R3(4)
• EXT.R3(6) TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, DATED 15/02/2015.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------ W.P.(C) No. 650 of 2016 (E) ------------------------------------------ Dated: 16 th December, 2016

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is aggrieved with the construction of a compound wall by the 3 rd respondent, which, it is alleged, is encroaching upon the pathway vested with the Panchayat. The petitioner's contention is that the pathway has a 4 metre width.

2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 1 st respondent submits, based on the counter affidavit filed by the 1 st respondent, that the Asset Register of the Panchayat shows the pathway to have only 2.5 metre width. However, the 3 rd respondent has sought for a permission to construct a compound wall leaving 3 metre width on the pathway. The approved plan also shows 3 metre width of the pathway.

-2-

3. In such circumstance, the 3 rd respondent can construct the compound wall only in accordance with the approved plan. The 3 rd respondent also has a contention that he has filed for correction insofar as the width of the pathway, which cannot be looked into, at all, by the Panchayat, since already the plan has been approved with 3 metre width. The 3 rd respondent, hence, would have to construct the wall in accordance with the approved plan.

With the above observation, the writ petition would stand dismissed. No Costs.

Sd/- K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

jjj 16/12/16