IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 19140 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHIBU VARGHESE, S/O. KOCHUMMEN VARGHESE, KELAVILATHEKKATHIL, TRIPPILAZHIKOM.P.O, KAREEPRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SANIL KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KAREEPRA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KUZHIMATHIKADU, KOLLAM. 2. THE TOWN PLANNER,OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNER, OFFICE OF THE TOWN PLANNER, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. K.R. DEEPA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19140 of 2008 EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 2.3.2001. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 19.7.2000 FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD 23.3.06. EXT.P4: COPY OF ORDER DATED 11.12.2007. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ W.P.(C)No.19140 OF 2008 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of his application for regularisation of an unauthorised construction made by him which regularisation is permitted under the Kerala Building (Regularisation of Unauthorised Construction and Land Development) Rules, 1999. As per those Rules, unauthorized constructions completed before 15.10.1999 can be got regularized on submission of an application, as provided under Rule 3 of the said Rules, before 31.10.2000. The petitioner submitted an application before 31.10.2000. But the application was not accompanied by fee for such application. The petitioner paid fee for that application only on 23.3.2006. Therefore, by Ext.P4 order, the Panchayat rejected the application. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same. 2. The petitioner’s contention is that it is not mandatory that the fee should be paid before submission of the application. It is further submitted that if at all it is only an irregularity which W.P.(c)No.19140/08 2 can be cured subsequently. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayat also. The Rules confer a concession to those who have made unauthorized constructions to get such constructions regularized on certain conditions. Since the Building Rules are framed for the specific purpose of regulating constructions, the very regularization of unauthorized construction itself would be against the Rules. When against the Rules a concession is granted, such concession can be given only if the conditions in the Rules for such concession are scrupulously followed. Rule 3 of the Rules specifically states that the application shall be submitted before 31.10.2000 and the application shall be accompanied by the documents mentioned in Rule 3(2), the first of which is a receipt for payment of application fee, if any paid, to the concerned Panchayat or the Municipality as per Rule 4. The Rule 4 prescribes the application fee for various types of buildings. I am of opinion that these Rules have to be strictly followed and if any conditions in the Rules are not complied with, the application is liable to be summarily rejected. Admittedly, the petitioner had not paid the fee prescribed W.P.(c)No.19140/08 3 under the Rules within the last date prescribed for submission of the application namely, 31.10.2000. He paid the fee almost six years later. As such the petitioner has not complied with the conditions stipulated for becoming eligible for the regularisation of the unauthorised construction. That being so I do not think that the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the Rules and therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd W.P.(c)No.19140/08 4