Kerala High Court
K.I.Vasu vs The Secretary, Pala Muncipality on 2 August, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.M.MANOJ
FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 5367 OF 2016
PETITIONER:
K.I.VASU, AGED 65 YEARS
S/O.KUTTAPPAN KULATHINKAL,ARUN NIVAS,
KATTAKAYAM ROAD,PALA.P.O,KOTTAYAM-686575.
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.SANAL KUMAR
SMT.BHAVANA VELAYUDHAN
SRI.M.T.SURESHKUMAR
SMT.T.J.SEEMA
SMT.SMITHA PHILIPOSE
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE SECRETARY, PALA MUNCIPALITY
PALA MUNICIPALITY,MUNICIPAL OFFICE,PALAI--686575,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
2 THE PALA MUNICIPALITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PALAI-686575,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.M.KURIAN, SC, PALA MUNICIPALITY
SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, SC, PALA MUNICIPALITY
SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE,SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 02.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
WP(C) No.5367 of 2016
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of August, 2024
The writ petition is preferred being aggrieved by the
issuance of Ext.P4 demolition notice. It is stated that the
petitioner, who is the owner of a two storied building constructed
in the property comprised in Sy.No.666/17/2 of Lalam Village.
The property is having an extent of 2.7 Ares. There existed a
pathway having a width of 10 feet on the western side of the
property. The pathway was created for the convenient and
enjoyment of the brother of the predecessor-in-interest. It is
further stated that in the year 2003, on obtaining necessary
permit, the petitioner constructed a two storied building, which
was numbered by the Municipality, along with its additional
structure, which is meant to fix the electric metre board for
effecting electric connection.
2. It is stated that the structure constructed for fixing the
electric metre board is covered with a tin sheet. Since the tin
sheet got rusted, the petitioner tried to replace the same and
done some repair works. While doing so, one person preferred a
complaint before the respondent Municipality and in the light of
the said complaint, proceedings were initiated under Rule 18 of
the Kerala Municipal Building Rules. Accordingly, Ext.P4 notice
along with demolition notice were issued to the petitioner. Those
notices were replied by Ext.P5. Thereafter Ext.P6 notice was
issued to the petitioner for a personal hearing on 19.11.2015.
Subsequent to the hearing, the petitioner submitted Ext.P7,
pleading ignorance with respect to taking prior permission before
effecting repairs and preferred this writ petition.
2. While admitting the matter, there was an interim direction
to maintain the status quo. On the strength of such interim order,
so far, no action is taken by the respondents.
3. The respondent municipality has preferred a counter
affidavit, wherein it is stated that the petitioner had carried out
unauthorised additional construction in the commercial building.
On receiving complaint, site inspection was conducted by the
Municipality and on finding that construction is carried out without
permission from the Municipality, stop memo dated 30.09.2015
was issued. A further direction was also given to demolish and
remove the unauthorised construction. It is further contended
that ignoring the stop memo, the petitioner continued the work
during night and completed the same and also extended his
business into the unauthorised construction. This was the
circumstances in which Ext.P4 notice under Section 406 (1) and
(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act,1994 was issued.
5. Though a reply as per Ext.P5 was preferred by the
petitioner, it is stated by the respondent that it is contrary to the
facts. Even on personal hearing, the petitioner could not afford
satisfactory explanation and agreed to remove the unauthorised
construction made by him before 19.12.2015. However, that was
not carried out till date.
6. I have heard Smt.T.J.Seema, the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri.Sujith Mathew Jose for respondents
Municipality.
7. On going by the pleadings and after hearing the
arguments on both sides, it appears that admittedly there was an
unauthorised construction on the part of the petitioner. Since in
Ext.P5 itself the petitioner admits that due to ignorance of law,
such unauthorised work was carried out. However, it is stated that
it was only a repairing work carried out by the petitioner in order
to protect the electric connection and its allied fittings. On the
strength of the interim order granted in this writ petition, so far
no further action has been taken by the Municipality. At this point
of time, only things to be done is to grant time to the petitioner to
approach the respondent for regularising the construction already
effected by the petitioner, if it is otherwise in order.
8. Accordingly, there will be a direction to the petitioner to
approach the municipality adopting appropriate procedure for
regularising the construction in question and on adopting such
formality, the Municipality shall consider the same and pass
appropriate orders on it, within a period of three months from the
date of receipt a certified copy of this judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
sd/-
P.M.MANOJ
JUDGE
das
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 5367/2016
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
P1 TRUE COPY OF TITLE DEED DATED 22.02.1996
P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY THE
PREDECESS0R-IN-INTEREST OF THE PETITIONER AND HIS
BROTHER DATED 29.03.1994
P3 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPT IN RESPECT
OF BUILDING NO.23/440 (NEW 20/751)DATED 07.01.2016
P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PW2-10737/15/DATED
17.10.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 29.10.2015 SUBMITTED
BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
P6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.PW2-10737/15 DATED
13.11.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.01.2016
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST
RESPONDENT
P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 14.01.2016 ISSUED
BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
