IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 18TH OCTOBER 2011 / 26TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 11085 of 2011(I) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SRI.D.AJI,PINKULAM VEEDU, KAKKAVILA P.O, PAZHAYA,UCHAKKADA. BY ADV. SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- KARUMKULAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH,REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,PUTHIYATHURA P.O,PIN-695 035, KARUMKULAM. *ADDL.R2 IMPLEADED *R2: SMT.TELMA JULIET VOICE, ERIKKALAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, THIRUPURAM, POOVAR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 525. * IS IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ORDER DATED 27/5/2011 IN IA NO.7658/2011 R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.M.PRASANTH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.11085/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.381/2010 OF SRO KANJIRAMKULAM. P1(A) COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.538/2010 OF SRO KANJIRAMKULAM. P2 COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 7/11/2009. P2(A) COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 15/5/2010. P2(B) COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 15/5/2010. P3 COPY OF THE BUILDING TAX RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.A2-7070/2010 DATED 26/8/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P5 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.A3.9914/10 DATED 3/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P6 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/10/2010 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P7 COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS. P8 COPY OF THE ORDER IN R.P.3 OF 2011 DATED 29/3/2011 OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A) COPY OF THE SALE DEED NO.1188/03 DATED 22/12/2003. R2(B) COPY OF THE TAX RECEIPT DATED 03/01/2003. R2(C) COPY OF THE OWNERSHIP CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THIS DEPONENT. R2(D) COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY DATED 16/4/2004. R2(E) COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY DATED 26/3/2010. R2(F) COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT 2/- -2- WP(C)NO.11085/2011 R1(A) COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT REGISTER. R1(B) COPY OF THE DEMAND REGISTER FOR THE PERIOD 2001-02 R1(C) COPY OF THE SAIL DEED NO.381/2010 DATED 29/3/2010. R1(D) COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.5932/10 DATED 9/8/2010 REJECTING THE APPLICATION R1(E) COPY OF THE DECISSION NO.IV(4) DATED 13/10/2010. R1(F) COPY OF THE LETTER NO.A3.9914/10 DATED 3/12/2010. R1(G) COPY OF THE STATEMENT DATED 29/11/2010. R1(H) COPY OF THE R.P.NO.3/2011 R1(I) COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 27/1/2011. R1(J) COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29/3/2011 IN RP NO.3/2011. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts HARUN-UL-RASHID, J. ------------------------ W.P.(C).No.11085 Of 2011 ---------------------- Dated this the 18th day of October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Exts.P4 to P6 and Ext.P8 order in R.P.No.3/2011 dated 29.3.2011 passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions and for a direction directing the respondent Panchayath to change the name of ownership of the petitioner in the assessment register and to issue consequent certificate to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he had purchased an extent of 13.38 cents of land comprised in R.S.No.259 of Karumkulam Village from one Telma Juiet Voice and a building situated therein and that the request of the petitioner for change of name of ownership of the building in his name was rejected by the respondent Panchayath as per Exts.P4 to P6. The petitioner preferred R.P.No.3/2011 before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions against Ext.P7 order of the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner approached this Court for the aforesaid reliefs. ::2:: W.P.(C).No.11085 Of 2011 3. It is averred in the writ petition that the predecessor- in-interest of the petitioner had constructed the building during 1992-93 and the building was assessed and the property tax for the financial year 1992-93 was realised. It is also stated that the respondent Panchayath was regularly collecting building tax from the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner. Immediately after the purchase of the property, the petitioner approached the 1st respondent Panchayath to change the ownership of the building in his name. The application was submitted on 19.7.2010 before the 1st respondent. But, the application was rejected by the respondent by order dated 26.8.2010. The true copy of the order is marked as Ext.P4. The request of the petitioner was rejected stating that the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner was wrongly incorporated in the assessment register kept by the respondent during the period 1992-93. Therefore, the application for change of ownership cannot be accepted. 4. In the detailed counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent Panchayath it is inter alia contended that the petitioner had demolished the existing building and constructed a ::3:: W.P.(C).No.11085 Of 2011 double storied building in the property, that the petitioner is bound to apply for new building permit and number after fulfilling the requirements of law, which he had not done. Therefore, it is contended that the attempt of the petitioner is to get an unauthorised and illegal construction of the building regularised under the pretext of the change of ownership of the old building. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the application for change of ownership are denied by the 1st respondent Panchayath and the 1st respondent contended that the petitioner is not entitled to the change of ownership to the building in his name. 5. In the light of the contentions raised by the 1st respondent Panchayath that the building now existing in the property of the petitioner was constructed without valid permit and approved plan and that it is the duty of the petitioner to apply for regularisation of the construction, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the contentions raised by the parties. ::4:: W.P.(C).No.11085 Of 2011 6. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner intends to file an application seeking regularisation of the construction of the building. In the event of the petitioner's submitting an application for regularisation within a period of three weeks from today, the 1st respondent Panchayath shall consider the application and pass appropriate orders within a period of one month from the date of submitting the application. All the contentions raised in the writ petition are left open. The writ petition is disposed of as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. bkn/-