The court emphasized that regulatory permits cannot be denied without substantiated claims of encroachment, adhering to proper procedural safeguards.

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The petitioner states that she retired from the Civil Supplies Department and has been working as a Para-Legal Volunteer attached to the District Court, Alappuzha. Between the property of the petitioner and the 5th respondent, there is a 3 metre wide canal lying East-West. The petitioner alleges that the 5th respondent has illegally encroached upon a portion of the canal and adjoining puramboke land.

2. The petitioner states that her property has well defined boundaries and survey stones laid by the Revenue Department. The petitioner wanted to construct a boundary wall on the north and east boundary. When the petitioner started construction in January, 2022, the 5th respondent filed a complaint before the Grama Panchayat. The petitioner states that the Panchayat authorities visited the site and found that the petitioner has not made any encroachment. Therefore, the petitioner was orally permitted to carry out the work.

3. On 10.01.2022, the 5th respondent made a complaint alleging that the petitioner is encroaching upon the canal illegally. The Village Officer, who made local inspection, also found that there is no encroachment. The Village Officer, however, advised the petitioner to obtain permit from the Panchayat before proceeding with the work. The petitioner therefore submitted an application dated

18.01.2022 seeking permit.

4. When the petitioner resumed the work on

25.01.2022, the 3rd respondent-Village Officer again issued Ext.P2 Stop Memo. The Stop Memo alleged that the work carried out by the petitioner is in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules. The petitioner states that the Village Officer has issued Ext.P2 on the basis of the influence exerted by the 5th respondent.

5. The petitioner states that based on the complaint filed by the 5th respondent to the District Collector, the Taluk Surveyor surveyed the property. In the consequential report submitted by the Tahsildar as per Ext.P3, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner has not started construction of the boundary wall encroaching upon the canal.

6. The Secretary of the 4th respondent-Panchayat, however, has taken a stand that without withdrawal of the Stop Memo, permit for construction of the compound wall cannot be issued. The Village Officer issued Ext.P5 letter to the Secretary to the Panchayat stating that the petitioner has not made any construction encroaching upon the canal. However, the 4th respondent has not so far issued Building Permit.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader representing respondents 1 to 3 and 6 and the learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent. Notice to the 5th respondent is dispensed with in the facts of the case.

8. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition. The 4th respondent stated that a complaint was filed by the 5th respondent alleging encroachment by the petitioner on the canal. The 4th respondent thereupon caused a site inspection and directed the petitioner to start construction only after obtaining Building Permit from the Panchayat. The petitioner submitted an application for permit. The petitioner was directed to produce boundary sketch of her property. The Sub Collector has directed the Panchayat to take action if there is encroachment.

9. The petitioner has produced Ext.P4 letter from the Sub Collector in which it has been stated that the petitioner has not made any construction over the canal. The report is silent about the boundary of the property of the petitioner.

The Village Officer has informed that boundary of the property of the petitioner is to be fixed by the Taluk Surveyor. The 4th respondent stated that in deference to the interim orders of this Court, Building Permit was granted to the petitioner on 30.05.2022.

10. The petitioner started construction of a boundary wall to his property. The 4th respondent did not permit the petitioner to pr