IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 5674 of 2011() ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. AZHAR,AGED 30,S/O.MOHAMMEDALI, MUKALEL, PALLARIMANGALAM PO,KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. IBRAHIM, S/O.SAIDU MOHAMMED, MUKALEL, PALLARIMANGALAM PO,KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADVS. SRI.DINESH R.SHENOY, SRI.G.HARIKRISHNAN (TRIPUNITHURA). RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- THE SECRETARY, PALLARIMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,O/O.PALLARIMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOOVALLOOR PO, PIN 686 671. *ADDL.R2 & R3 IMPLEADED: R2. THE PALLARIMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY IT'S SECRETARY, O/o.PALLARIMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOOVALLOOR PO, PIN - 686 671. R3. THE PANCHAYATH COUNCIL, PALLARIMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY IT'S PRESIDENT, O/o. PALLARIMANGALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOOVALLOOR PO, PIN - 686 671. (*ADDL. R2 & R3 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DTD. 23/03/2011 IN IA.NO.5383/2011) BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED, SRI.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 5674 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are co-owners of 10cents of land comprised in survey No.521/1/1 of Pothanikad Village, Kothamangalam Taluk. For the purpose of construction of two storied building in the said property they applied for building permit on 20.10.2010. Subsequently, Ext.P1 building permit was granted to them. On the strength of the said building permit and the approved plan they completed the construction of the ground floor. While carrying on with the steps for further construction of the the first floor, they were issued with Ext.P3 notice. The objection in Ext.P3 is that though they were required to leave out 2 meters open space on the western side of the building, on account of some oversight, Ext.P1 building permit was issued without noticing the failure to provide the said required set back of 2 meters of open space. In short, according to the respondents on account of that illegality the construction effected is illegal and the petitioners have to demolish the construction in such a WPC.5674/2011 : 2 : manner to leave out 2 meters of open space on the western side. Evidently,the contention is that they had effected the construction strictly in terms of the permit conditions and tune with the approved plan. That apart, it is contended that in view of the coming into force of Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011(for short 'the Rules') there is absolutely no reason to look into the aforesaid aspect and the said objection is no more sustainable. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice the relevant provision under proviso to Rule 28(1) of the Rules. Going by the said provision, the open space to be left open with respect to the building in question is only 1.5 meters, it is contended. Pointing out the said aspect the petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 before the respondents. However, on account of the pendency of this writ petition, Ext.P6 has not been taken up for consideration. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. I am of the considered view that the contentions raised by the petitioner in Ext.P6 requires a serious WPC.5674/2011 : 3 : consideration especially in view of the coming into force of Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P6 petition submitted by the petitioners and to consider the sustainability of the contentions in the light of the relevant provisions under proviso to Rule 28(1) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2011. To enable the petitioner to consider the issue afresh and pass orders on Ext.P6, the impugned order viz., Ext.P3 is set aside. A decision in terms of this judgment shall be done, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge