J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 15th day of July, 2021 The petitioner, who has constructed a commercial building complex, has filed this writ petition seeking to direct respondents 1 and 2 to allot building numbers and occupancy certificate for eight shop rooms constructed by him.

2. The petitioner states that he owns 32.10 Ares of land in Melukavu Village of Meenachil Taluk. The petitioner, as per Ext.P1, obtained building permit from the 1st respondent-Panchayat to construct 602.24 square metres commercial building. The building consisted of 10 shop rooms. While the petitioner approached the 1st respondent seeking occupancy certificate, the 3rd respondent, who is brother of the petitioner, filed OS No.101/2020 before the Munsiff’s Court, Erattupetta, alleging that two of the shop rooms constructed by the petitioner are situated in the property of the 3rd respondent. The said two shop rooms were scheduled in Ext.P2 plaint.

3. The petitioner states that the Munsiff’s Court, as per Ext.P3, granted an interim injunction restraining the 1st respondent from allotting building number to the two scheduled shop rooms. On the basis of this interim order, the 1st respondent did not number the remaining shop rooms. By Ext.P4, the petitioner was informed that building numbers can be allotted only after the adjudication of the suit. The petitioner seeks to quash the said Ext.P4 communication. 4. The 3rd respondent entered appearance and defended the writ petition filing counter affidavit. The 3rd respondent stated that the petitioner has suppressed material facts while filing this writ petition. The petitioner is trying to circumvent Ext.P3 injunction order of the civil court. The petitioner has an efficacious alternate remedy against Ext.P4. Without resorting to such remedy, the petitioner cannot be permitted to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court. The 3rd respondent specifically denied the claim of the petitioner that the building is constructed without violating the permit conditions. As two shop rooms are not constructed fully, the entire building is not ripe to be numbered.

5. Respondents 1 and 2 filed a statement in the case.

Respondents 1 and 2 stated that the Overseer, who inspected the building, reported that two shop rooms are situated in the property which is subject matter of OS No.101/2020. Since the boundary cannot be ascertained, measurements cannot be taken to ascertain whether the partially constructed building satisfies the building rules.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel representing the 3rd respondent.

7. There is no dispute over the fact that the petitioner has constructed the building after obtaining a building permit from the Panchayat. While the construction was in progress, there arose a dispute between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent approached civil court and obtained interim injunction against numbering of the shop rooms. But, Ext.P3 injunction order of the civil court would indicate that the injunction is confined to two shop rooms only. Therefore, ordinarily, the 1st respondent should not have any difficulty to number the eight shop rooms which are not in dispute.

8. But, the difficulty is that without identifying the boundary of the property of the petitioner, the Panchayat cannot ascertain whether there is any violation of building rules or permit conditions in the construction made by the petitioner. Such identification of boundary is now subjudice and it will be inappropriate for the Panchayat, if not illegal, to identify the boundary when the issue is pending before the civil court. Therefore, respondents 1 and 2 were justified in issuing Ext.P4 communication.

9. At the same time, it has to be noted that there is no dispute on the title of the petitioner over the property where the eight completed shop rooms are situated. If building numbers are not allotted to those shop rooms