SASIDHARA A. AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the residents of Chengala Grama Panchayath in Kasargod District. In the writ petition, they are aggrieved by Ext.P10 order dated 22.09.2015, passed by the District Collector, granting a No Objection Certificate(NOC) to the 7th respondent, for the purposes of constructing a mosque in neighboring premises. It was the case of the petitioners, even in a previous round of litigation, that the 7th respondent was going ahead with the construction of the mosque in the area, without obtaining a prior permission from the District Collector, as mandated under the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules 2011. It would appear that, when the petitioners approached this Court on the earlier occasion, challenging the action of the 7th respondent in taking steps to construct the mosque, this Court by Ext.P5 judgment, after noticing that an application for NOC had been preferred by the 7th respondent before the 2nd respondent herein, disposed the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent, to consider the objections of the petitioners also, while considering the grant of NOC to the 7th respondent, for constructing the mosque. It was also made clear that the 7th respondent should not commence construction activities of the mosque, till such time as orders were passed by the 2nd respondent District Collector. Ext.P10 is the order passed by the District Collector, pursuant to the directions in Ext.P5 judgment. In Ext.P10 order, while granting the NOC to the 7th respondent, the District Collector made it clear that the premises was to be used only for prayers, and further that, no burial grounds would be constructed within the said premises. It was also directed that a compound wall would be constructed, before the construction of the mosque itself and there were also directions with regard to the use of microphones and the decibel levels that had to be maintained, as also with regard to the prevention of any communal disturbance in the area, and causing of any disturbance to pedestrians in the vicinity of the premises. As already noted, Ext.P10 order of the District Collector is impugned in this writ petition inter alia on the ground that it was not open to the District Collector to grant an NOC, in a case where the construction had already commenced, since the requirement was for an NOC to effect the construction itself. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is essentially that inasmuch as the 7th respondent had already commenced the construction of the building, the structure attained the status of an unauthorised construction and this could not be regularised through the grant of an NOC by the District Collector.

(2.) Counter affidavits have been filed by the 3rd respondent as also by the 7th respondent. Reply affidavits have also been filed by the petitioners to the counter affidavits filed by the 3rd and 7th respondents.

(3.) I have heard Sri.P.Haridas, the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent and Sri.Salahudheen, the learned counsel for the 7th respondent and the learned Government Pleader for the official respondents.