IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2011 / 6TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 37487 of 2010(I) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. HARIGOVIND, S/O. SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI, 'HARIVISHNU', ETTAMTHERUVU VILAKKU, AYILOOR P.O., PALAKKAD. 2. VISHNUPRASAD, S/O. SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI, 'HARIVISHNU', ETTAMTHERUVU VILAKKU, AYILOOR P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADVS. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.V.VENUGOPAL RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. AYILOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, AYILOOR P.O., PALAKKAD.678 510 2. THE SECRETARY, AYILOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AYILOOR P.O., PALAKKAD.678 510 R1 & R2 ADVS. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY, SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.S.A.ANAND SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.37487/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED DTD. 6.9.2010 EXECUTED BY THE PARENTS OF THE PETITIONERS. P2:- COPY OF THE PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE tss C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.37487 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 27th June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners are owners in possession of 6¼ cents of property comprised in Re-survey No.465/7 of Ayiloor Village and the building therein. They submitted an application for permission to effect reconstruction of the Agraharam situated in the said property. Ext.P2 is the plan submitted for that purpose. As per Ext.P3, after noting certain defects the petitioners were directed to cure the said defects within seven days. According to the petitioners, defect No.3 in Ext.P3 is unsustainable in view of Rule 72 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. Obviously, the application submitted by the petitioners for reconstruction of the Agraharam in terms of Ext.P2 plan has not been rejected. Ext.P3 would reveal that on scrutiny of the said application certain defects were detected and the petitioners were called upon to cure the said defects. According to the petitioners, defect No.3 in the light of Rule 72 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules is unsustainable. However, that is also a contention to be considered at the first instance by the second respondent. In case the petitioners submit explanation on defect No.3 the second respondent shall consider the same in accordance with law WP(C).No.37487/2010 2 and pass appropriate orders and then, subject to the decision thereon appropriate orders on the application submitted by the petitioners for effecting construction in terms of Ext.P2 shall be taken. Orders in terms of this judgment shall be passed by the second respondent expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the explanation from the petitioners. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation regarding the sustainability of the contention raised against Ext.P3 based on Rule 72 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and also the entitlement of the petitioner to get permission for reconstruction. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS