Statutory jurisdiction of local bodies and the necessity for hearing before issuing demolition notices are affirmed.

JUDGMENT

This Writ Petition (C) is filed seeking the following reliefs:

" 1. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P6 and quash the same as illegal.

2. Issue a writ by way of declaration, declaring that the respondent panchayath have absolutely no right to issue Ext.P6 notice as the stream in question which is the subject of the notice is not vested nor the same was included in the asset register of the panchayath.

3. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to restore the property of the petitioner to its original position as on the date of the notice Ext.P6."

[SIC]

2. The petitioner is the absolute owner of an extent of 27.47 Ares in Re.Sy No.158/1/1 of Vazhoor Village is the submission. The petitioner purchased the above property is the submission. The total extent of land as aforesaid has two segments, and the Kottayam-Kumily road is on the southern side, is the submission. It is submitted that a seasonal stream, which has water only during the rainy season and is only 60 cms wide, passes from the eastern portion to the western portion, thereby segmenting the petitioner's property into two. It is the case of the petitioner that the said stream is exclusively going inside the property of the petitioner. The petitioner wanted to have access to his property from the main road, for which purpose he constructed a road connecting the two halves and provided concrete pipes having a 1.5 diameter horizontal to the stream for the passage of water during the rainy season, is the submission. The stream in question is not vested in the panchayath, and the same is not included in the asset register of the Panchayath is the submission. According to the petitioner, there was a long-standing dispute between the petitioner and members of the ruling party. At the behest of the party ruling, the panchayath issued Ext.P6 notice to remove the construction within 24 hours, without issuing any notice and without any adjudication is the submission. Hence, this Writ Petition.

3. Heard counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel for the Panchayat. I also heard the Government Pleader.

4. The counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others V.Haji Wali Mohammed and Others [ 1972 (2) SCC 402 ], and submitted that the 24-hour time given for dismantling the structure is illegal. I do not want to make any observation about the same. This Writ Petition has been pending before this Court since 2024 onwards. This Court passed a status quo order on 18.10.2024. The same is regularly extended. I am of the considered opinion that this writ petition need not be retained here. The Panchayat should give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and consider the contention raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, including the jurisdiction of the Panchayat to issue such an order. To facilitate the Panchayat to reconsider the matter, Ext.P6 can be set aside.

Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

1. Ext.P6 is set aside.

2. The 3^rd respondent is directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders, after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-