IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2010 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 21578 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- GLADIS DENZIL, AGED 45 YEARS, W/O.DENZIL, KARIMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PALLIPURAM P.O., VYPIN. BY ADVS. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- THE SECARETARY, PALLIPPURAM GRAMAPANCHAYATH, PALLIPPURAM P.O., VYPIN-688541. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- WP(C).No. 21578 of 2010(V) -2- APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH DATED 9/12/2008. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE SKETCH PREPARED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, KAZHUPILLY. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE CONSENT LETTER OF THE PERSON RESIDING ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PETITIONER'S PROPERTY. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS - NIL //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 21578 OF 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of December, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of a small plot of land 2.89 cents in extent situated in survey No.39/2 of Kuzhupilly village, Cochin Taluk, Ernakulam District. On her application, the Secretary of Pallippuram Grama Panchayat issued Ext.P1 building permit. On the strength of Ext.P1 building permit the petitioner put up a residential building in that parcel of land. After the construction was completed, the petitioner moved the Secretary of the local authority for issuing the occupancy certificate and numbering the building. This writ petition is filed contending that though the petitioner had produced the consent letter issued by the persons using the private pathway on the northern side of her land, the Secretary of Pallippuram Grama Panchayat has declined to number the building and to issue the occupancy certificate. In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the Secretary of Pallippuram Grama Panchayat to number the building put up by her on the strength of Ext.P1 building permit. 2. The petitioner contends that under rule 62 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, the minimum set back required is only 2 metres, that the set back from the northern boundary of the petitioner's property is more than 2 metres and therefore, there is no reason why the WPC No.21578/2010 2 Secretary of the local authority should decline to number the building and issue the occupancy certificate. 3. The respondent has been served and has also entered appearance through counsel. However, till date the respondent has not filed a counter affidavit disputing the statement made by the petitioner that the building put up by her has the minimum set back from the northern boundary. 4. I heard Sri.Jojo A.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The respondent does not dispute the fact that the petitioner had put up the disputed building only after obtaining Ext.P1 building permit. Ext.P1 permit was issued on 9.12.2008. Till date, the said permit has not been cancelled. It is also not disputed that Chapter VIII of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules applies to the construction of buildings in the land belonging to the petitioner. Under rule 62 thereof, the minimum distance required between the plot boundary abutting any street other than national highways, state highways, district roads and other roads notified by the Municipality and the building other than a compound wall or fence or outdoor display structure, shall be 2 metres. A private pathway runs along the northern boundary of the petitioner's property. The persons using the said pathway have given Ext.P3 series of consent letters wherein they have WPC No.21578/2010 3 consented to the petitioner constructing a building. The petitioner has also positively averred that the set back from the northern boundary abutting the private pathway is more than 2 metres. In such circumstances, as the petitioner has lawfully put up the building on the strength of Ext.P1 building permit, I find no reason why the building cannot be numbered. I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the respondent to number the building put up by the petitioner on the strength of Ext.P1 building permit and to issue the occupancy certificate within two weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before him. It is clarified that nothing contained in this judgment will stand in the way of the respondent from taking action if later it is found that the petitioner has deviated from the approved plan while constructing the building. P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.21578/2010 4 WPC No.21578/2010 5