IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 17212 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- JOSE USUFF ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM USUFF, AGED 49, THANNIKKAL HOUSE, KOLLADU P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.KARJET KODUVATH SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE SECRETARY, KOTTAYAM MUNICIPALITY. ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R1 & 2 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.17212 of 2010-B - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of July, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner in this writ petition is the owner of building Nos.771 and 775 in YMCA Road, Kottayam. The property is situated in Sy. Nos.44/1-1 and 42/1 of Muttambalam Village. There are three buildings in the said property with numbers 771, 772 and 775. Building Nos.772 and 775 are adjacent to the road and the same are contiguously constructed. The petitioner obtained the property on the basis of a will executed by his father. 2. The petitioner was granted the land and building Nos.771 and 775 whereas his brother got building No.772. For constructing a shopping complex, the petitioner submitted an application for a building permit and as per Ext.P4, the same was granted. In Ext.P4 there was a condition that the petitioner should demolish the existing old building. The construction was completed in April, 2010 and the petitioner submitted an application for numbering the building. It is mentioned in the writ petition that the old building was demolished except a very small portion. 3. The petitioner has approached this Court in the light of the fact that the Municipality did not take any follow up action for numbering the wpc 17212/2010 2 building. Accordingly, he seeks for a direction to consider Ext.P6 application for numbering the building within a time frame. 4. The Municipality has filed a counter affidavit. It is pointed out that the petitioner submitted an application on 18.2.2010 along with a completion certificate as contemplated in the rules, for issuance of an ownership certificate. Exts.R1(a) to R1(c) are the documents produced by the petitioner. Thereafter, a site inspection was conducted and then it was found that the entire portion which was directed to be demolished, had not been demolished and a memo was issued as per Ext.R1(d) informing the petitioner about the same. Therefore, the plea taken by the Municipality is that all the conditions imposed in Ext.P4, have not been complied with by the petitioner which disentitles him to get an ownership certificate and allotment of number to the building. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the demolition of the remaining small portion could not be effected in the light of the fact that the entire building of his brother is attached to this building contiguously and if that portion is demolished, it will cause damage to the other building by losing its lateral support. It is pointed out that the same cannot be put as a precondition for issuing ownership certificate and for allotting number to the building. wpc 17212/2010 3 6. My attention is invited to the report prepared on 29.6.2010 after a site inspection by the Assistant Engineer which is produced as Ext.R1(g). It only supports the plea raised by the petitioner that if demolition is effected, the other portion owned by his brother will crumble down. Therefore, in the report it is suggested that by constructing a supporting wall to the ridge, the said portion can be strengthened and thereafter demolition can be effected. Learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality submitted that the Municipality will not have any objection to the above course and building can be provisionally numbered in the meanwhile with a condition that the petitioner will demolish the remaining portion immediately. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said works will be effected within one month from today. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms: 8. The petitioner will have to demolish the remaining portion after undertaking the works as suggested by the Asst. Engineer in Ext.R1(g) and the same shall be done within one month and completion certificate will be furnished to the Municipality. The Municipality will give a provisional number to the building in the meanwhile and after complying with all the formalities, the application for ownership certificate and for regularising the number that is granted, will be considered, and orders will be passed wpc 17212/2010 4 without further delay. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/