IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2010 / 15TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 11 of 2010(B) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ANILKUMAR,S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN,AGED 43 YRS, AGED 43 YEARS,39/1845,JYOTHY,PALARIVATTOM, REPRESENTD BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER R.RAVINDRAN PILLAI,S/O.RAMAN PILLAI,AGED 67 YEARS,RESIDING AT 35/1849 JYOTHY,PALARIVATTOM,KOCHI-682 025. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.HARIRAJ SRI.SURAJ.S SRI.P.A.KUMARAN SMT.VINEETHA B. SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CHERANALLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,CHERANALLOR SOUTH CITTOOR,KOCHI-682 027. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,KAKKANAD.P.O,ERNAKULAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, COLLECTORATE, KAKKANAD.P.O. 4. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,GOVENMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR GP K.R.DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).11/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are refusing to number the three storied commercial building constructed by him. According to the petitioner, in 7.35 cents of land in survey No.33/6 of Cheranallor Village, he constructed a building. It is stated that the construction has been completed and he applied to number the building which request has not been accepted by the respondents so far. It is with this grievance the writ petition is filed. 2. It is seen that proceedings were initiated by the 1st respondent on the allegation that the construction was irregular and the 1st respondent had ordered demolition of the building. That order was challenged before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in Appeal No.553/2008 filed by the petitioner. That Appeal was disposed of by Ext.P7 order, setting aside the impugned proceedings and directing to initiate fresh proceedings under Section 235 W of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. It is W.P.(C).11/10 2 during the pendency of such fresh proceedings that by Ext.P8, petitioner sought regularization and numbering of the building. It would appear that the 1st respondent took up the matter before the Senior Town Planner who, by Ext.P10, declined the proposal to regularize and number the building. Therefore, at present the construction is unauthorised and irregular and the aforesaid proceedings are pending. Therefore, I find no justification in the complaint of the petitioner that the respondents are unreasonably refusing to number the building of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court will not be justified in passing an order sought for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs