The existence of a valid building permit precludes unauthorized obstruction of construction activities, allowing for formal complaints regarding land reclamation to be pursued separately.

JUDGMENT

Abdul Rehim, J.

The petitioner is the title holder of 14.7 Ares of property comprised in Re-Sy.No.736/7-3, 737/5-2/3 and 737/15-2/5 of Kattanam Village. The petitioner is constructing a residential building in the said property on the strength of Ext.P1 Building Permit and Ext.P2 Approved Plan issued by the Bharanickavu Grama Panchayat. Grievance of the petitioner is that, the respondents 4 an 5, who are the neighbouring property owners, are creating obstructions to the construction activities. It is stated that the respondents 4 and 5, with the help of certain others, have obstructed bringing of building materials into the property. It is further alleged that the 4th respondent made an open threat that if the petitioner continues the construction works in the property, he has to face dire consequences with respect to the lives of himself and his family members. It is also alleged that the respondents 4 and 5 and their henchmen had planted a WPC.No.22934/2011 2 flag of the organisation, DYFI in front of the petitioner's property and is continuing with the illegal activity of constant threats, intimidations and obstructions. The petitioner filed Exts.P7 complaint to the 3rd respondent. Since no action was taken, this writ petition is filed.

2. Objections from the side of the respondents 4 and 5 are obviously on the ground that the petitioner is making an attempt to reclaim wet land, under the guise of construction of the residential house. It is further contended by respondents 4 and 5 that, against the illegal reclamation, the Revenue Divisional Officer had issued Stop Memo against the petitioner. However, no copy of any such proceedings is produced in this writ petition. On the other hand, the petitioner had produced Ext.P3, copy of the inspection report issued by the Agricultural officer as well as Ext.P4 certificate issued by the Village Officer, which will indicate that Coconut Trees having the age of 15 years and other fruit bearing trees are situated in the property of the petitioner. The petitioner had also produced Ext.P9 certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer to the effect that the property belonging to the petitioner was already reclaimed and there are standing WPC.No.22934/2011 3 coconut trees and other trees having the age of more than 15 years. It is further stated that, since the property is not cultivable with paddy, it is not included in the data bank prepared under the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act 2008. Learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 and 5 strongly contended that Exts.P3, P4 and P9 could not be relied upon because only a portion of the land in question remains reclaimed and that with respect to the low lying wet land there is no permit obtained by the petitioner for any such reclamation. It is also contended that Ext.P9 certificate is obtained only after filing of the writ petition.

3. From the facts and circumstances enumerated as above, as well as from the rival contentions raised on either side, we notice that the petitioner was issued with a Building Permit as per Ext.P1 and P2 by the Grama Panchayat concerned. If respondents 4 and 5 have got any complaint that the permit was issued in violation of any of the statutory provisions, they should take steps to approach the competent authority to get the permit cancelled. It is also left open to respondents 4 and 5 to approach the appropriate authority raising complaints if they WPC.No.22934/2011 4 have got grievance to the effect that under the guise of construction the petitioner is attempting to reclaim the low lying wet land. As long as any competent authority has not issued any proceedings directing stoppage of the construction or in any manner cancelling the permit already granted, the respondents 4 and 5 or anybody else claiming under them can be permitted to create any physical obstruction to the construction activity.

4. Under the above mentioned circumstances, we direct the

3rd respondent