JUDGMENT

Dated this the 5th day of October, 2021 The writ petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash Exts.P4, P7 and P9 communications of the 2nd respondent and to direct the 1st and 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to complete the construction of the residential cum commercial building strictly in compliance with Ext.P1 Building Permit.

2. The petitioner states that he is the absolute owner of 20 Cents of land comprised in Re-Survey No.884/1/1 and in Re-Survey No.884/1/2 in Vamanapuram Village of Nedumangad Takuk in Thiruvananthapuram District. The petitioner wanted to construct a building for residential cum commercial purpose. An application for Building Permit was submitted. The 1st respondent-Panchayat granted Ext.P1 Building Permit for construction of a building with 83.39 Square Meters of area.

3. The petitioner states that his property is facing a Panchayat road on northern side and there is a foot path on the western side beyond which Shreya LP School is situated. According to the petitioner, the width of the footpath varies and is having 1.5 metres in the beginning from the road reduced to less than 1 metre towards the end. The petitioner set apart nearly 2 metres from the foot path for construction as per the approved plan. The Ext.P2 plan was approved by the Panchayat and Ext.P1 permit was issued.

4. Subsequently certain persons using the pathway on the western side of the petitioner's compound submitted complaints and consequently the Secretary to the Panchayat issued Ext.P4 Stop Memo. In Ext.P4 it was stated that the LSGD Engineer made a site inspection and he could not locate the exact boundaries of the pathway. Ext.P4 further stated that the boundaries of the pathway can be ascertained only after getting a Surveyor's sketch on that premises. The petitioner was required to stop his work and produced the survey sketch urgently.

5. The petitioner states that in response to Ext.P4 the petitioner produced a survey sketch. Nevertheless the petitioner was issued with Ext.P7 letter of the Secretary stating that in the Re-Survey sketch, the boundary locations are not marked. There is a survey stone in the area. The local residents raised dispute in respect of the location of the said survey stone. Therefore, the Taluk Surveyor has to decide the boundaries of the pathway. Any further steps can be taken only after the Taluk Surveyor determines the boundary. The Secretary to the Panchayat thereafter sent Ext.P9 communication to the Tahasildar requiring that steps may be taken to depute Taluk Surveyor to decide the boundaries of the property in question.

6. The petitioner would contend that as per Rule 5 of Chapter II of Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, a Building Permit is necessary for construction and the Secretary can suspend an issued Building Permit only invoking Rule 16. Non of the conditions stipulated in Rule 16 satisfied in the case of the petitioner justifying the direction of the Panchayat Authorities to stop the construction on the basis of an approved Building Permit.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not in any manner violated the Building Permit conditions and the petitioner cannot be stopped from the work undertaken by him.

8. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner produced the survey sketch and the 3rd respondent reported as per Ext.P6 that there is no footpath or way shown in the Asset Register of the Panchayat. Since the alleged pathway is not in the Asset Register of the Panchayat, the Panchayat Authorities cannot indulge in resolving the dispute. The dispute as to the said pathway would be a pure civil dispute, resolution of which can be done only through Civil Courts. The Panchayat Authorities cannot pressurize the petitioner to stop the construction undertaken by him, to settle a dispute between private parties.

9. The 2nd respondent filed a counter affidavit in the writ petition. The 2nd respondent stated that after