Unauthorized constructions require express permission from property owners; lack of such permission legitimizes demolition actions.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners are allottees of bunks belonging to the first respondent Grama Panchayat. Alleging unauthorised construction the respondents initiated proceedings with a view to demolish the unauthorised construction. This writ petition has been filed seeking quashment of Exts.P5 and P6 orders and also a declaration that the entire proceedings initiated by respondents 1 and 2 and consequential orders, Exts.P5 and P6 are illegal.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

3. When this matter is taken up for hearing the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents made available the records that ultimately culminated in issuance of Exts.P5 and P6. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioners were allotted bunks as they being the successful bidders in the auction conducted by the first respondent Panchayat. The first petitioner is conducting a medical shop in the allotted bunk and the second petitioner is conducting a bakery in the bunk allotted in her favour. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that what was alloted to them are bunks. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that it is incorrect to say that they were allotted with bunks and in fact, they are occupying shops belonging to the first respondent Panchayat. Be it bunks or shops it is a fact that spaces in that structure belonging to the first respondent Panchayat were allotted to the petitioners for conducting a medical shop and a bakery respectively and they are conducting the said business there based on the licences issued to them. A scanning of the contentions would reveal that there is no dispute with respect to the position that some constructions have been effected by the petitioners. While the respondents contended that they are unauthorised constructions the petitioners attempted to justify their action to canvass the position that the additional constructions are not liable to be demolished. Despite the persuasive submission by the learned counsel for the petitioners no specific provision has been brought to my notice which legally permits the petitioners to effect constructions unauthorisedly. There is no case for the petitioners that the additional constructions were effected with consent or after obtaining permit from the respondents or after obtaining appropriate orders from any competent court. In this context, it is also to be noted that the petitioners did not dispute the ownership of the first respondent over the shops/bunks in question. When that be so, in the absence of anything on record to show that such additional constructions were effected with the permission of the respondents it can only be said that they are unauthorised constructions. Virtually, the proceedings that culminated in Exts.P5 and P6 were initiated by the respondents for removing the said unauthorised constructions. Such proceedings from the part of the respondents, in the circumstances expatiated above, cannot be said to be illegal. In the said circumstances, Exts.P5 and P6 do not call for interference and the petitioners are not entitled to get a declaration that Exts.P5 and P6 are legally unsustainable. When faced with such a situation, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners may be given some breathing time to remove the materials in the additional constructions effected by them. I am of the view that it is only a reasonable request from the part of the petitioners. In the said circumstances while declining to interfere with the actions that culminated in Exts.P5 and P6 the first respondent is directed to grant 20 days time from today for the petitioners to remove the materials and also the additional unauthorised constructions. It is made clear that in case of failure of the petitioners to remove the materials as also the additional unauthorised constructions within the above stipulated time it will be open to the respondents to remove such