The competent authority must conduct mandatory surveys and measurements before rejecting representations on building permits.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners state that they are joint owners of property having an extent of 46.3 cents in Chevayur village and desom of Kozhikode Taluk. The petitioners submitted Ext.P1 representation dated

13.01.2020 before the Secretary of the Corporation against granting of building permit to respondents 4 to 8, in the adjacent property of the petitioners. Since no action was taken thereon, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W .P .(C) No. 12517 of

2020. This Court, by Ext.P2 judgment, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the 2 nd respondent to consider Ext.P1 representation (Ext.P22 therein) and pass appropriate orders. The relevant paragraphs of

Ext.P2 judgment read as follows:-

“ 5. Without getting into the merits and controversy of the matter, in any manner, it is ordered that the 1st

respondentSecretary of Kozhikode Corporation will take up the matters raised in Ext.P22 representation dated 13.01.2020, and after following a fair procedure and after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners as well to contesting respondents 4 to 7, and should take a considered decision in the matter so as to finalise the action on the matters raised in Ext.P22, in accordance with law, without much delay preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment.

“6. Further it is open to the 1st respondent- Secretary of Kozhikode Corporation to ensure that an appropriate survey and measurement of the subject property are duly conducted by the Town Surveyor, and if such a request is made, the Town Surveyor will ensure that an effective survey and measurement should be conducted with due prior notice to the petitioners herein as well as contesting respondents 4 to 7 and the 1st respondent-Secretary of Kozhikode Corporation, and should ascertain as to whether the properties covered by Ext.P-1 and Ext.P-2, on the one hand are those covered by Exts.P6, P-7 and P-8 on the other hand, etc., and then should give a report of the Town Surveyor along with the Survey Sketch, clearly giving his expert opinion in the matter and such survey and measurement should be conducted after examining the above said title deeds of both sides as well as Re Survey records and other records, etc, and this process may be duly completed by the Town Surveyor within one month from the date of receipt of the requisition in that regard from the 1st respondent.

Thereafter the 1st respondent will ensure that a copy of report of the Town Surveyor along with a copy of Survey Sketch are given to both the petitioners as well as contesting respondents 4 to 7, before a considered decision is taken in the matter on Ext.P-22 as afore directed.”

2. According to the petitioners, pursuant to

Ext.P2 judgment, instead of conducting a survey and measurement, the 3 rd respondent conducted a site inspection and filed Ext.P4 report before the 2 nd respondent stating that there is no encroachment and the 2 nd respondent based on Ext.P4 report rejected

Ext.P1 representation of the petitioners vide Ext.P7 order.

3. Heard Sri. Harish Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. V . Krishna Menon, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. B.S. Symanthak, the learned Government Pleader for the 3 rd respondent. Though notice was served on respondents 4 to 7, there is no appearance.

In the nature of the directions I propose to issue, service of notice to the 8 th respondent is dispensed with.

4. According to Sri.Harish, in terms of the directions in Ext.P2 judgment, the 3 rd respondent ought to have conducted survey and measurement in accordance with the provisions of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act , 1961. Instead, what has been done by the 3 rd respondent is only an examination of the available documents.

5. Since thi