Writ petitions concerning construction issues cannot resolve property disputes related to encroachment and require civil court adjudication.

JUDGMENT

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Call for the records which leads to the passing of Ext. P16 order and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, unsustainable and one issued to flout the mandate contained in Exts.P3, P10 and P15 Judgments, Ext.P4 Permit and Ext.P6 report and sketch of the Expert Engineers, that too after ignoring the fact that proceedings were initiated under relevant provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 , after issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction;

ii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 4^th respondent to issue permit for construction of Geocell retaining wall as suggested in Ext.P6 sketch and plan prepared by the Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Karnataka, after taking note of Ext.P4 permit already granted for construction, as expeditiously as possible.

iii) To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the 4^th respondent to permit the petitioner to proceed with the construction of Geocell retaining wall as suggested in Ext.P6, forthwith after taking into account of the fact that the tourist home belonged to the petitioner remains closed for the last more than three years”.

2. The pleadings in the writ petition succinctly stated are as follows:

This is the 5^th time that the petitioner is approaching this Court with a prayer to direct the 3^rd respondent to permit her to construct a retaining wall in front of the courtyard of Ida Tourist Home, where a slight land slide occurred during the heavy rain in the monsoon season of 2022. Despite repeated directions from this Court, the 4^th respondent Secretary of Munnar Grama Panchayat, who is bound to protect the life and properties of the citizens, has failed to issue permit to construct a retaining wall, and he is playing foul play, holding one or other flimsy reasons. The 2^nd respondent District Collector and Chairperson of Idukki District Disaster Management Authority by virtue of a communication dated 19.08.2023, directed the 4^th respondent to take immediate action on the request of the petitioner as and when the final plan and sketch from the expert agency is obtained. Though the final sketch and modified sketch were submitted before the 4^th respondent, nothing is materialized till date, and he is waiting for a major disaster and casualty in the area so that the entire life earnings of the petitioner will be ruined. Immediately after the minor landslide occurred near the courtyard of the tourist home of the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent directed the petitioner to stop the functioning of her tourist home. Irrespective of issuing such an order, the respondents have not taken any preventive measures either to protect the area from further landslides or to start functioning of the tourist home, which is the only livelihood of the petitioner and her family. Left with no remedy petitioner has filed applications before the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents for permission to construct a retaining wall in the area where the landslide occurred, at her expense. In turn 4^th respondent informed the petitioner that she is not permitted to do any corrective measures at the site. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to permit the petitioner to construct a retaining wall where the landslide occurred. This Court, by virtue of Ext.P1 Judgment dated 31.08.2022 in W.P.(C) No.28131 of 2022, directed the