Balasubramaniam vs Choondal Grama Panchayath
2022 Latest Caselaw 7073 Ker

                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

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

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

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