Sunny Mathew vs The Mulavukad Grama Panchayath
2021 Latest Caselaw 7918 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

         THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR

MONDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                   WP(C).No.5905 OF 2021(K)


PETITIONER:

              SUNNY MATHEW, AGED 65 YEARS
              S/O. MATHEW, ELANJIKKAL HOUSE, BOLGATTY,
              MULAVUKAD, ERNAKULAM-682 504

              BY ADVS.
              SRI.JOBY JACOB PULICKEKUDY
              SRI.ANIL GEORGE

RESPONDENTS:

     1        THE MULAVUKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH
              REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MULAVUKAD,
              ERNAKULAM-682 504

     2        THE SECRETARY,
              MULAVUKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MULAVUKAD,
              ERNAKULAM-682 504

              R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN
              R1-2 BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJPRADEEP

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP           FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME           DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.5905 of 2021              ..2..




                     W.P.(C) No.5905 of 2021
                  --------------------------------------


                             JUDGMENT

Petitioner owns a building within the limits of the

first respondent Panchayat. He constructed an additional

structure over the existing building without obtaining building

permit from the Panchayat. Later, the petitioner preferred

Ext.P4 application for regularisation of the unauthorised

construction effected by him. The said application has been

rejected by the Secretary in terms of Ext.P5 communication.

Ext.P5 communication is under challenge in the writ petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as

also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the application for regularisation preferred by the

petitioner has been rejected on account of the defects

mentioned in Ext.P5 communication. It is stated that the

petitioner is prepared to cure the defects mentioned in Ext.P5

communication and he could not do so since he was not given W.P.(C) No.5905 of 2021 ..3..

an opportunity to cure the defects.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the

respondents submits that if the petitioner cures the defects

mentioned in Ext.P5 communication, the competent authority

of the Panchayat is prepared to consider the application afresh.

In the circumstances, Ext.P5 communication is set

aside and the writ petition is disposed of granting two weeks

time to the petitioner for curing all the defects mentioned in

Ext.P5. Needless to say, if the petitioner cures all the defects

mentioned in Ext.P5 communication, a fresh order shall be

passed by the competent authority of the first respondent

within two weeks thereafter.

Sd/-

                                            P.B.SURESH KUMAR
                                                 JUDGE
ds 08.03.2021
 W.P.(C) No.5905 of 2021             ..4..




                             APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1                TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED NO.
                          4166/2011 DATED 24.09.2011.

EXHIBIT P2                TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION CERTIFICATE IN
                          RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY DATED
                          19.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE
                          OFFICER, MULAVUKAD.

EXHIBIT P3                TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF NOTICE DATED
                          01.04.2017 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
                          RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4                TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR

REGULARIZATION DATED 17.12.2020.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 15.01.2021 INFORMING THE REJECTION OF APPLICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.