IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 16186 of 2007(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- POOZHIYIL BALAN, S/O.LATE PAITHAL, AGED 71 YEARS, SAPNALAYAM, P.O.PALAYAD, THALASSERY, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DHARMADAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, DHARMADAM, THALASSERY, KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER, SMT. SUDHA DEVI. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.K.SUMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 16186 of 2007(B) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER, G.O.(Rt)No.2075/2000/LSGD DATED 24-05-2000. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.12.2005. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A5 1629/05 DATED 28-12-2005. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH. EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18-04-2007. EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 11-05-2007. EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.A5-897/07 Dated 16-06.2008. /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. ---------------------------------------------- W.P(C).No. 16186 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner approached this Court challenging Exhibits P3, P5 and P6 orders, which, in fact require the petitioner to demolish the unauthorised construction effected by the petitioner on the first floor of the building, the ground floor of which itself was constructed in violation of the statutory prescriptions, however, permitted to remain by virtue of the regularization granted by the Government. 2. The sequence of events is as follows: 3. The petitioner, being the owner of the land in question comprised in Sy.No.36/3 of Dharmadam Village, within the area and jurisdiction of the second respondent Grama Panchayat, constructed a building therein in the year 1997. When the construction was completed and steps were taken to have the building numbered, the same was not acceded to by the second respondent stating that there was violation of the statutory WP(C).16186/07 2 prescriptions, which made the petitioner to approach the Government/first respondent for appropriate reliefs. After considering the matter, the first respondent passed Exhibit P1 order dated 24.5.2000 directing regularization of the construction on payment of the compounding fee, which is stated as satisfied and the building has been numbered accordingly, after regularizing the construction. 4. Undaunted by the turn of events, the petitioner still proceeded to construct two more rooms on the first floor of the above building and filed Exhibit P2 application for numbering the same on 19.12.2005. In response to Exhibit P2, the second respondent conveyed the decision as per Exhibit P3 that the requisition of the petitioner could not be considered in his favour as the construction of the ground floor itself was not in tune with the relevant provisions of law and it was only by way of 'accommodation', that 'regularization' was given as per Exhibit P1 order passed by the first respondent. Met with the situation as conveyed by the second respondent by Exhibit P3 dated 28.12.2005, the petitioner filed a requisition before the Committee of the Panchayat for granting necessary reliefs. On considering the said request, the Panchayat decided, as per WP(C).16186/07 3 resolution dated 9.3.2006, to have the matter to be taken up for consideration before the first respondent/Government for further steps. 5. On taking up the matter before the first respondent, the entire aspects were considered by the Government, who declined the request and rejected the prayer as per Exhibit P5 dated 18.4.2007. Pursuant to Exhibit P5, the Panchayat issued Exhibit P6 notice dated 11.5.2007 asking the petitioner to demolish the unauthorised construction. The petitioner is challenging Exhibits P3, P5 and P6 orders stating that once the unauthorised construction is regularised by the Government as per Exhibit P1, it is no more open to the respondents to say that any further construction effected on the first floor is not liable to be treated as unauthorised construction as well. 6. Heard the learned Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent Panchayat as well. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the objection raised by the Panchayat was that the petitioner had not effected the requisite distance norms under the relevant Act/Rules. It is contended by the learned counsel that the first WP(C).16186/07 4 floor constructed by the petitioner is never protruding beyond the ground floor and since the construction of the ground floor has already been regularized by the Government as per Exhibit P1, any further construction effected as the first floor, upon the ground floor, is not liable to be treated as in violation of the Act/Rules. This Court finds it difficult to accept the proposition made by the petitioner. 8. Admittedly, the construction effected by the petitioner even in respect of the 'ground floor' was in contravention of the statutory prescriptions. But the consequence for violation in this regard was remedied by the first respondent-Government permitting the petitioner to have it compounded and to have the construction of the building regularized as per Exhibit P1. This was only to save the demolition of the 'ground floor' constructed in violation of the statute. In other words, it cannot be treated as a green card or passport to the petitioner to perpetuate the illegality or to perpetuate the violation, effecting further constructions and to enjoy the properties beyond the stipulated extent. In such circumstances, the construction of the two rooms by way of 'first floor', in violation of the statutory prescriptions, gives rise to a separate cause of action and the Panchayat is not WP(C).16186/07 5 bound to number the said building. The matter was considered by the first respondent/Government, who has rightly rejected the claim, holding that the benefit of regularization was once extended to the petitioner and as such, no further relief can be granted. This Court finds that the orders passed by the respondents are perfectly in conformity with the relevant provisions of law. This Court also holds that the discretionary jurisdiction vested with this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to save the perpetual wrong- doers; more so when the petitioner admittedly sought to perpetuate the illegality/violation by effecting further construction contrary to the provisions of law. If the petitioner was misguided or was unaware of the consequences by effecting the construction, nobody else can be blamed for his fault or misconception as the case may be. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted. The Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed accordingly. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE vgs