The applicability of municipal building rules was evaluated, reaffirming property rights based on valid measurements, overriding bureaucratic notices citing alleged encroachments.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who is an Ex-service man, presently employed at Vienna in Europe, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P10 notice issued by the first respondent – Kaduthuruthy Grama Panchayat restraining him from continuing with the construction of a commercial building on his property covered by Ext.P1 document of title. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the Government Order G.O.(Rt) 150/2007 LSF dated 6.6.2007 referred to in Ext.P10 i.e. the Government Order by which the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules were extended to the Panchayat ares in the State is not applicable to the building which is being constructed by him. The petitioner also prays for a direction to the first respondent Panchayat to allow the petitioner to proceed with the construction. Ext.P1 is a copy of the title document which would show that the petitioner has absolute title and possession over 8 cents of land in Survey No.30/1-2 of the Kaduthuruthy Village. Based on Ext.P1, the petitioner approached the first respondent Panchayat for permission to construct a commercial building in the said plot and the Panchayat issued the petitioner with Ext.P2 No Objection Certificate. Under Ext.P2, the petitioner is given permission to construct building without violating the Rule 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. The petitioner started construction of the building after collecting necessary building materials and while the work was in progress on 1.8.2006, the petitioner was issued with Ext.P3 stop memo. In Ext.P3, Circular No.6/993/96 dated 13.2.1996 of the District Collector is referred to and the petitioner is directed to stop the construction until the boundaries of the property are fixed on the basis of a measurement by a competent survey officials. The petitioner claims that on receiving Ext.P3, he got the property measured by the Taluk Surveyor and enclosing the site plan prepared by the Taluk Surveyor, Ext.P4 request was sent by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent – Assistant Engineer (Irrigation) seeking permission to continue with the construction of the building after leaving the set back of 1.5 meters away from the side of the thodu puramboke and 3.90 meters from the margin of th PWD road viz. Ernakulam - Ettumanoor State Highway. In spite of Ext.P4, the 2nd respondent did not send any reply to the petitioner. But while so, the 3rd respondent -Assistant Executive Engineer (Irrigation) issued a letter to the petitioner directing the petitioner to stop the construction till the puramboke was got measured by the Revenue Authorities. While so, the petitioner received Ext.P5 notice from the local village officer. In Ext.P5, the petitioner has been directed to stop the construction till such time as the thodu puramboke (allegedly included in the petitioner's property) is identified through a proper measurement. In Ext.P5, the petitioner is also directed to appear before the RDO, Pala and to produce relevant documents. The petitioner submits that as directed in Ext.P5 all relevant documents were produced by him before the RDO, Pala. It is pointed out that the RDO, Pala has not issued any orders restraining the petitioner from proceeding with the construction. In deference to Ext.P5, the petitioner applied to the Tahsildar to facilitate measurement of the property and demarcation of the boundaries for confirming that in his property no puramboke has been included. Pursuant to that application, the petitioner submitted Ext.P6 representation before the District Collector for expediting the matter. Thereafter, the Taluk Surveyor measured the property again and found that all the constructions which have been taken up by the petitioner are within the property covered by the pattayam in his favour. Ext.P7 is the plan prepared by the Taluk Surveyor and Ext.P7(a) is the letter by which Ext.P7 was forwarded by the petitioner to the 2nd respondent. In spite of Exts.P7 and P7(a), the 2nd respondent did not be inc