IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2009 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 2071 of 2009(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.R.SUBRAMANIYAN S/O.LATE P.S.RAMA IYER NEAR GANAPATHY TEMPLE, NEW VILLAGE NENMARA POST-678508 NENMARA VILLAGE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SRI.GEEN T.MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY CHIF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. NENMARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY THE SPECIAL GRADE SECRETARY, NENMARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, NENMARA POST, 678508, PALAKKAD. 3. A.V.PHALGUNAN, MANAGER, TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE, NEW VILLAGE, NENMARA POST 678508, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.K.ANAND FOR R2 SRI.C.J.JOY FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 2071 OF 2009 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009 JUDGMENT The third respondent commenced the construction of a building. The petitioner, the neighbour, objected to it. The objections were taken up by the Secretary of the second respondent Grama Panchayat, at a stage when the construction activity had reached the stage of first floor. The ground floor structure was built and the construction of the first floor was going on. The Secretary therefore, issued impugned Ext.P6 to the petitioner stating that the third respondent has applied for regularising the construction and that the question of regularisation will be decided only after hearing the petitioner and the decision between the petitioner and the third respondent on the boundary dispute is awaited. Wpc 2071/09 2 2. The parties are in complete agreement that the panchayat Secretary has not decided on the correctness or otherwise of the construction including the question as to whether it is to be regularised. The petitioner stands to point out certain materials on the strength of which Panchayat Secretary had also taken the stand that there are certain violations of the KMBR, 1999. The third respondent would further state that those rules do not apply to the panchayat area in question when he commenced construction. 3. The existence of a boundary dispute, by itself, is not reason for Panchayat Secretary to postpone the decision making process in relation to a building permit, a completion certificate or a regularisation application. It may not be in anybody's interest to keep the issues live for a larger time frame than Wpc 2071/09 3 required in normal course. The provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act and the KMBR give fair room for application for license, appeal to Panchayat Committee in cases there is delay on the part of the secretary to consider the application for license and still further a direction for deemed license. Beyond all that is the power to regularise the constructions including those commenced without license. All that is required, as the law now stands, is that the construction is in terms of applicable provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act framed thereunder as also KMBR, if applicable. 4. Under the aforesaid circumstances, Ext.P6 is quashed and the Secretary of the first respondent is directed to hear the parties and take a decision on the application filed by the third respondent for regularising the construction. All relevant materials will be Wpc 2071/09 4 considered. The Panchayat Secretary will also take into consideration whether the settlement of the boundary between the petitioner and the third respondent is necessary for finally deciding the question of correctness of the construction of the building by the petitioner. Let this exercise be carried out within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that this shall be done after hearing the petitioner and the third respondent and after looking into the necessary materials and untrammelled by anything stated in this judgment. Writ petition ordered accordingly. No costs. THOTTATHIL B RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE lgk/9/12