IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 33810 of 2006(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- THE SECRETARY, MUDAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ELAMBA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SRI.M.R.SARIN SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SRI.KIRAN SANKAR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, RATHEESH BAHVAN, ELAMBA P.O., ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R1 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R1 SRI.A.S.SABU FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.33810/06 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DT 12.5.2006 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF OBJECTION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 4.7.2006 BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF the APPLICTION OF SRI.RAGHAVAN PILLAI (BEENA) FOR NUMBERING THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE EXT.P4 COMPLAINT OF the RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY TO THE EXT.P4 COMPLAINT OF THE RESPONDENT ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY SUKESAN IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT 8.9.06 SUBMITTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT. EXT.P9: TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DT.30.8.06 SUBMITTED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER. EXT.P10: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 8.11.2006 ISSUED BY THE OMBUDSMAN. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 33810 OF 2006 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner Panchayat has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P10 order passed by the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. 2. It is stated that in 2001, 1st respondent purchased a plot of land having an extent of 2.5 cents. Immediately thereafter, he constructed a house and applied to the petitioner Panchayat to assign building number to the building in question. However, the Panchayat refused to number the building on the ground that the construction was in violation of Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, in as much as the 3 meter distance was not provided from the boundary of the land. Finally, the 1st respondent moved the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions and Ext.P10 order was passed allowing the application. 3. A reading of Ext.P10 order shows that the Ombudsman was impressed by the contention raised by the 1st respondent that another building in the neighbourhood belonging to one WPC 33810/06 :2 : Smt.Beena constructed in violation of Section 220(b) was numbered by the Panchayat for the reason that a portion of the land was surrendered by that person. The Ombudsman held that the petitioner's predecessor in interest also having surrendered a portion of the land was entitled to relaxation of the rules and that such eligibility for relaxation runs with the land, and therefore, the petitioner, being the present owner, is entitled to have his building numbered. It is this order which is challenged by the Panchayat. 4. Panchayat submits that the road was widened after Smt.Beena constructed the house and that it was therefore that the building happened to be situated otherwise than in compliance with Section 220. If this be the factual position, the correctness of which cannot be doubted, the case of the 1st respondent is not comparable with that of Smt.Beena. If so, the basis on which the Ombudsman has proceeded is factually incorrect. 5. However, fact remains that the 1st respondent has constructed the house way back in 2001-02, and even as at WPC 33810/06 :3 : present, the building is not numbered. It is now pointed out that subsequent to the construction of the building, Building Rules were implemented to the petitioner Panchayat also and that Chapter VIII of the Building Rules containing Rules 60 to 64 makes certain special provisions for buildings constructed in small plots. 1st respondent submits that his plot having only an extent of 2.5 cents and therefore is eligible for the benefit of Chapter VIII of the Building Rules. 6. If as stated by the 1st respondent, he is eligible for the benefit of Chapter VIII of the Building Rules, there is no reason why he should not be given the benefit. However, this is a matter for the Panchayat to consider. 1st respondent has already applied for assigning building number and it is on that basis, the Ombudsman has passed Ext.P10 order. Therefore, having regard to the pendency of the aforesaid application, it is directed that the Secretary of the petitioner Panchayat will examine whether the 1st respondent is eligible for the benefit of the provisions contained in Chapter VIII of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, in which event, extending the benefit thereof, the building shall be WPC 33810/06 :4 : numbered. It is directed that the whole process as above shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. 7. 1st respondent may produce a copy of this judgment before the Panchayat for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp