IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY
FRIDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 27TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 31799 OF 2015
PETITIONER/S:
1 BALASUBRAMANIAM
AGED 43, S/O. VASU,
S/O.VETTAYATTIL HOSUE,VATTANTHARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 JINESH, AGED 28 YEARS,
S/O.VELAYUDHAN, PANCHA VEED P O, PADOOR, THRISSUR
CHOONDAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, KECHERY P O, THRISSUR
DISTRICT 680 501
BY ADV SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENT/S:
1 CHOONDAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KEECHERY P O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REP BY ITS
SECRETARY - 680 501.
2 THE SECRETARY
CHOONDAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KEECHERY P O, THRISSUR
DISTRICT, 680 501.
3 FAROOK
S/O.POKKER, KOOKAYIL HOUSE, KECHERY ,ERNELLY VILLAGE,
CHOONDAL PANCHAYATH, THALAPPILLY TALUK,
THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680 501.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN
SRI.MAHESH V.MENON
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.06.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 31799/2015 :2:
SHAJI P. CHALY, J.
---------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C). No. 31799 of 2015
---------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of June, 2022.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:
1. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to take action against the 3rd respondent and ensure that the 3 rd respondent does not carry out any construction of the building in his property without obtaining building permit/licence from the 2 nd respondent.
2. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2nd respondent to consider Ext. P5 representation filed by the petitioner before taking any decision to number the building illegally constructed by the 3 rd respondent.
2. The allegation made in the writ petition is that the third respondent has carried out construction of a building adjoining the property of the first petitioner, without complying with the Kerala W.P.(C) No. 31799/2015 :3: Panchayat Building Rules, 2011 ('Rules, 2011' for short) and without securing any permit and approved plan from the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat , the second respondent.
3. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by respondents 1 and 2, in which it is stated as follows:
3. The Panchayat was informed by the Village Officer by a letter dated 25.4.2015 that no puramboke land is included in the area in 0.0120 Are in Sy. No. 78/5. It is further made clear that the distance from the road to the sunshade of the building is 2 metres and to the foundation of the building is 3.1 metres. The direction to rectify the defect in the plan was complied with and the rectified plan was submitted on 15.6.2015. The Panchayat had obtained legal opinion that regularization can be done if the construction of the building is completed in compliance with the relevant rules. Accordingly in pursuance of the report of the Assistant Engineer, the construction of the building was regularized on 21.7.2015 as no violation of building rules was reported. So far the Panchayat has not assigned number to the building in question. In view of the above facts, the reliefs sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted and the remedy of the writ petitioner is not before this Hon'ble Court. The petitioners have not challenged the order of regularization passed by the Panchayat. Even now the writ petitioners did not point out violation of any provisions of the building rules in the construction of the building."
4. Therefore, it can be seen that even though the construction W.P.(C) No. 31799/2015 :4: was carried out by the third respondent without securing permit and approved plan from the Secretary of the Choondal Grama Panchayat, it was later regularised by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, 2011.
5. In that view of the matter and since power is vested with the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to regularise any unauthorised construction, I do not think, the petitioners are entitled to get any relief at this distance of time.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
sd/ SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE.
Rv W.P.(C) No. 31799/2015 :5: APPENDIX OF WP(C) 31799/2015 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 P1:-TRUE COPY OF COMMISSION REPORT FILED BY THE ADVOCATE COMMISSION IN OS NO 336/2015 DTD 25/3/2015.
EXT.P2 P2:-TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 P3:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DTD 24/8/2015.
EXT.P4 P4:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER IN OS NO 336/2015 OF THE MUNSIFF COURT, WADAKKANCHERY DTD 9/10/2015. EXT.P5 P5:-TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER DTD 3/10/2015 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXT.P6 P6:-TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 2ND REPONDENT.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL /True Copy/ PS To Judge.
rv