IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2011 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 12603 of 2011(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. GEORGE, S/O.ITHAC, AGED 54 YEARS, PLAKKIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM - 686 664. 2. SHEELA GEORGE, W/O.GEORGE, AGED 46 YEARS, PLAKKIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM - 686 664. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU ABRAHAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE PIRAVOM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PIRAVOM - 686 664, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. MR.BENNY THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, MADATHIKUNNEL HOUSE, PIRAVOM - 686 664. R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR. R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE SEBASTIAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 12603 of 2011(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE PERMIT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 18/03/2008. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 25/03/2011. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX PAID TO BUILDING NO.IV/74-H DATED 30/03/2011. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE NOTICE/ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT PANCHAYAT DATED 16/02/2011. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 16/03/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.12603 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioners have constructed a building on the strength of Ext.P1 building permit. At the instance of the second respondent, Ext.P4 notice was served on the petitioners by the first respondent alleging that the construction of the building was effected in violation of the provisions of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules (for short 'the Rules'). On its receipt, the petitioners have filed Ext.P5 objection before the first respondent. In the said objection, the petitioners have also raised a claim for getting regularisation of the unauthorised construction. The learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that appropriate application for the said purpose, in accordance with the provisions of the Rules, has not so far been submitted by the petitioners. It will be open to the petitioners to file appropriate application for getting regularisation of the building. At the same time, it is evident that the first respondent has not finalised the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the respondents would finalise the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P4 after W.P.(C) NO.12603/2011 2 considering the objection raised by the petitioners and also after affording an opportunity to petitioners and the second respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it will only be appropriate to consider the application for regularisation also at the time of finalisation of the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P4 notice so that the second respondent would also obtain an opportunity to raise his objections, if any, on the issue of regularisation as well. To facilitate such consideration, the petitioner if desirous to file an application for regularisation, shall file the same within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to finalise the proceedings initiated as per Ext.P4 and also to consider the question whether the construction could be regularised after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and also to the second respondent. This shall be done expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till a decision is taken in terms of the directions in this judgment, the first respondent shall take no coercive steps pursuant to Ext.P4. It is made clear that this Court has not made any observation regarding the merits of claims or contentions raised by petitioners as also the second respondent. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.12603/2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.12603/2011 4