Reji Varghese vs Nomitha Pravis
2022 Latest Caselaw 12123 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
              THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
   THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944
                         RP NO. 1085 OF 2022
                 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN
            WP(C) 16588/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/5TH RESPONDENT:

          REJI VARGHESE
          AGED 64 YEARS
          CHAITHANYA, PLOT NO.3 D, MKK NAIR NAGAR,
          THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682301

          BY ADVS.
          PRAMOD J.DEV
          JOSE ABRAHAM


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4:

    1     DR. N. K. VISWANATHAN
          AGED 79 YEARS, S/O N.K.KUMARAN
          NADEPPALLY HOUSE, TRIPUNITHURA P O, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT
          NOW RESIDING IN HOUSE NO. 216B (12/343)
          KOCHUKARIMBIL HOUSE,VANDIPETTA JN, KOKKAPPILLY P O,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682305
    2     NOMITHA PRAVISH
          AGED 37 YEARS
          HOUSE NO.216B (12/343), KOCHUKARIMBIL HOUSE,
          VANDIPETTA JUNCTION, KOKKAPPILLY P.O,
          ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682305
    3     STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
          LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,
          GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
    4     TOWN PLANNING OFFICER
          OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNING OFFICER,
          LSGD PLANNING, 4TH FLOOR, CIVIL STATION,
          KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682030
 RP No.1085 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No.16588 of 2022

                                    2




     5      TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY
            REPRESENTED BY THE MUNICIPAL SECRETARY,
            MUNICIPAL BUILDING, STATUE JUNCTION,
            TRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682301
     7      SECRETARY
            TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL BUILDING,
            STATUE JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA, PIN - 682301

            SMT.M.SANTHY R1 AND R2
            SRI.C.V.MANU VILSAN-R5 AND R6
            SMT.VIDYA KURIAKOSE GP


     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 RP No.1085 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No.16588 of 2022

                                    3




                                 ORDER

Dated this the 22nd day of December, 2022

The 5th respondent in the writ petition has filed this

Review Petition alleging errors apparent on the face of the

records in the judgment dated 20.06.2022 in W.P.(C)

No.16588 of 2022.

2. The writ petitioners approached this Court seeking

to direct the Municipal Authorities to consider their application

for regularisation of the building construction. It appears that

the 5th respondent has made certain complaints against the

alleged unauthorised construction by the writ petitioners. The

writ petition was disposed of without issuing notice to the

5th respondent, but directing the 3rd respondent-Municipality to

consider Ext.P8 representation. Respondents 3 and 4 were

directed to forward the documents and comments to the

2nd respondent-Town Planning Officer. The Town Planning RP No.1085 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No.16588 of 2022

Officer was directed to give his recommendation report to

respondents 3 and 4. Respondents 3 and 4 were directed to

take a final decision on the building construction regularisation

application submitted by the petitioner within a further period

of four weeks.

3. Counsel for the review petitioner submits that there

should have been a direction to hear the review petitioner

while considering the application for regularisation submitted

by the writ petitioners. To that extent, there is an error

apparent on the face of the records.

4. I find that in the writ petition, this Court has only

directed to consider a representation/application of the writ

petitioners for regularisation of building construction, which is

of a statutory nature. It is in that view of the matter, no notice

was issued in the writ petition to the 5th respondent. Therefore,

I do not find any error apparent on the face of the records in

order to review the judgment in the writ petition. However, RP No.1085 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No.16588 of 2022

taking into consideration the fact that the review petitioner had

already filed a complaint regarding encroachment with the

authorities, it will be only just and proper that the 5 th

respondent be also heard by respondents 3 and 4 in the writ

petition while taking a final decision on the application

submitted by the writ petitioners.

Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of directing

respondents 3 and 4 to hear the review petitioner also while

taking a final decision in the matter.

Sd/-

N.NAGARESH JUDGE spk RP No.1085 of 2022 in W.P.(C) No.16588 of 2022

APPENDIX OF RP 1085/2022

PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure A REPRESENTATION DATED 15.11.2021 Annexure6 PETITION TO CONDONE DELAY Annexure B REPRESENTATION DATED 17.12.2021 Annexure C REPRESENTATION DATED 18.10.2022 Annexure D ASSET REGISTER OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT Annexure E BTR KEPT IN NADAMA VILLAGE Petition PETITION TO CONDONE DELAY