Assisstant Engineer Vs Pious Joseph

W. A. No. 624 of 2023

-1-

2025:KER:27261

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. NITIN JAMDAR

¶7

¶8

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU

¶9

WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947

¶10

WA NO. 624 OF 2023

¶11

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) NO.6419 OF 2021 OF HIGH

¶12

COURT OF KERALA

¶13

APPELLANT/S:

¶14

ASSISSTANT ENGINEER

¶15

PWD ROADS SECTION, KALLOORKAD P.O. , ERNAKULAM,
PIN - 686668

¶16

BY ADV K. P. HARISH, SR. GP

¶17

RESPONDENT/S:

¶18

1 PIOUS JOSEPH AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH, VATTAKUZHI HOUSE, KALLORKAD P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686668

¶19

2 THE KALLOORKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH KALLORKAD P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN - 686668

¶20

3 SECRETARY

¶21

THE KALLOORKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KALLORKAD P.O.
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686668

¶22

BY ADV MATHEW JOHN (K)

¶23

W. A. No. 624 of 2023

¶24

-2-

¶25

2025:KER:27261

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE

¶27

FOLLOWING:

¶28

W. A. No. 624 of 2023

¶29

-3-

¶30

2025:KER:27261

¶31

J U D G M E N T

¶32

Dated this the 26^th day of March, 2025

¶33

Nitin Jamdar, C. J.

¶34

The issue that arises in this appeal is regarding the requirement of leaving a setback for the purpose of construction from a public road. The Petitioner received a notice that he had not left the setback as required under Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, which was challenged by the Petitioner by filing W. P. (C) No. 6419 of 2021. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment dated 25 January 2022 directing the Panchayat to measure the distance from the boundaries of the registered holding of the Petitioner and if it falls within the stipulated distance, the Panchayat was directed to issue building number to the Petitioner. This judgment is challenged by the State.

¶35

Heard Mr. K. P. Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Mathew John, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1.

¶36

The State is aggrieved by the direction given on the ground that the measurement of the distance of registered holding cannot be the criterion and the setback has to be calculated from the construction actually carried out. However, this question of law does not arise in this appeal because one of the issues that arose before the learned Single Judge was whether the distance is to be counted in this case excluding the drain between the construction and the public road or including it.

¶37

W. A. No. 624 of 2023

¶38

-4-

¶39

2025:KER:27261

¶40

There was also a debate as to whether the drain was on the private property of the Petitioner or outside. The learned Single Judge recorded a finding that the drain is within the property as there is no record of any acquisition or surrender of the property and the officer of the Public Works Department, who was a party to the writ petition, had not produced any such record. We find no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has not given any wider declaration of law but decided the case on facts.

¶41

The case was decided by the learned Single Judge on facts and thus the concern expressed by the learned Senior Government Pleader that a proposition of law has been laid down that measurements always have to be from the registered boundary, is misplaced and the question whether the distance from registered boundaries has to be taken or from the actual side, is left open to be considered in an appropriate case. That apart, we are informed, that the Panchayat, who has not filed an appeal, has already issued a building number to the Petitioner.

¶42

6. The appeal is disposed of as above.

¶43

Sd/NITIN JAMDAR CHIEF JUSTICE

¶44

Sd/S. MANU JUDGE

¶45

Eb

Assisstant Engineer v. Pious Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Assisstant Engineer v. Pious Joseph

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vicar, St.Jude Church Vs State of Kerala

Anil Kumar G., Vs State Bank of India

The Revenue Division Officer/ Sub Collector, Vs Jacob Boban

State of Kerala Vs Muralikumar

Amago Exim Private Limited Vs Gilgal Cashew Exports

Mohanan Vs the District Collector