The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the

3^rd respondent is making certain constructions on his property,

within the confines of the 1^st respondent-Kizhakkambalam Grama

Panchayat, without obtaining any Building Permit and without any

permission being obtained from the said Panchayat for doing so.

The petitioner, therefore, prays that the 2^nd respondent-Secretary

of the Panchayat be directed to take appropriate action against

the 3^rd respondent forthwith.

2.

In response, the learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd

respondent-Sri.A.T.Anil Kumar, submits that the allegation made

by the petitioner against his client is wholly untrue, since he is a

person who had voluntarily surrendered his property for the

purpose of widening of the Panchayat Road and that going by

Ext.R3(a) decision of the Panchayat, he and such other similarly

situated persons were allowed to reconstruct a compound wall on

the present road line. He says that this has been done by the

petitioner also and therefore, that the resistance exhibited by the

petitioner, in this writ petition to the construction of a compound

wall in front of his property, and that to after leaving sufficient

road margin, is confutative and malicious, to say the least. He,

therefore, prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

3.

The learned Standing Counsel for Kizhakkambalam

Grama Panchayat-Sri.Thomas George, submits that both the

petitioner and 3^rd respondent had voluntarily surrendered small

extents of their property for the purpose of widening of the road

in front of it and therefore, that the Panchayat had given them

permission to reconstruct the compound wall after the said

earmarked area was left. He says that the 3^rd respondent has

only constructed such a compound wall, for which it has been

resolved by the Panchayat, through R3(a), that no permission is

required to be taken under Rule 10(1) of the Kerala Panchayat

Building Rules (KPBR). He says that, in fact, the petitioner has

himself done so and therefore, that his objection raised against

the construction being made by the petitioner is untenable and

mischievous. He, therefore, prays that this writ petition be

dismissed.

4.

In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner,

Sri.Paul.K.Varghese, submits that his client is not opposing the

construction of a compound wall by the 3^rd respondent, but only

4

in his making constructions encroaching into the public road. He

says that, in fact, his client does not stand in the way of the

Building of the 3^rd respondent being restored and repaired,

consequent to its demolition for the purpose of the widening of

the road, but that in the guise of doing so, the said respondent is

constructing additional structures projecting into the public road

and therefore, that the Secretary must look into these issues

immediately.

5.

When I consider the afore submissions, it is without

doubt that the objections of the petitioner is not against the

construction of the compound wall or the carrying out of the

maintenance work on his building by the 3^rd respondent. His only

objection is that the 3^rd respondent, while doing so, is making

constructions protruding into the public road. I am, therefore,

certain that this is a matter that the Secretary of the Panchayat

must look into, since, whatever be the reasons that may stated

by the said Authority, no person can be allowed to make any

construction encroaching or protruding into public places, without

proper legal sanction to do so.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and direct the 2^nd

5

respondent-Secretary of the Panchayat to immediately hear the

petitioner, as well as the 3^rd respondent, and issue an appropriate

order on the afore complaint of the former, after making

necessary site inspection, as expeditiously as is possible, but not

later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment.

Needless to say, if any directions are issued by the

Secretary to the 3^rd respondent with respect to his con