AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is aggrieved with the obstruction to the construction of a bridge carried on, by the 6th respondent. The petitioner is residing in an
island, a portion of which is owned by him, specifically 74 cents. The island is situated within Alangad Panchayat and is known as Neericode-
Kattukandam Thuruthu. The petitioner has access to the main land only through water, which creates problems to him and his family. The petitioner
is also the only resident in the island.
In the above-said circumstances, the petitioner filed an application to the Panchayat to enable him to construct a bridge across the water body,
so as to provide easy access to the main land. The Panchayat took a resolution as per Ext.P1 to allow the demand. Ext.P2 is the agreement
executed by the petitioner with the Panchayat, to which is appended the plan and the specifications of the bridge to be constructed. The petitioner
was to construct the bridge, as per the resolution, under the supervision of the Engineer attached to the Local Self Government Department.
The petitioner commenced such work, upon which, the Village Officer issued Ext.P5 stop memo, allegedly at the instance of the 6th respondent.
The petitioner, hence, filed an objection before the Village Officer as per Ext.P6 pointing out various circumstances and also indicating that the
petitioner had obtained permission from the Panchayat, on whom the water body vests. After conducting enquiry, by Ext.P8, the stop memo
earlier issued was withdrawn by the Village Officer. At this point, the 6th respondent started creating obstruction to the construction of the bridge.
The 6th respondent is also said to have caused damage and had allegedly pilfered the construction materials, thus causing difficulties in the
completion of the bridge. The petitioner hence approached the 3rd respondent, as is seen from Ext.P9.
The learned Senior Government Pleader submits that the 6th respondent was summoned and warned and as per the information of the Police,
there is no further difficulty created by him. The Panchayat, who is impleaded as 4th respondent, submits through their learned Counsel that the
water body vests in them and they have absolute right over the same. The Panchayat also affirms that a sanction was granted to the petitioner to
construct the bridge under the supervision of the Local Self Government Department.
We had an apprehension as to whether it is a water way as controlled by the Inland Water Ways Authority of India. We impleaded them as the
additional 7th respondent, who through their Counsel, filed a statement in which it has been specifically stated that they have no claim over the said
water body.
It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was a suit filed by one another person as O.S.No.18/2018 before the
Munsiff''s Court, North Paravur, against the construction, in which the petitioner is a party. The petitioner has appeared and consted the same and
no interim orders have been granted.
In the said circumstances, especially since the 6th respondent has not appeared despite service of notice; subject to the petitioner carrying on
the bridge construction as per Exts.P1 and P2, we direct the police to afford necessary protection, if at all, any complaint of obstruction to the
construction is received.