IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 34031 of 2005(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- VARKEY JOSEPH, S/O. VARKEY, KURUPPASSERIL HOUSE, KUMBALANGHI, KOCHI-682 007. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SUJIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. ABRAHAM PETER, THERUVIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMBALANGI,KOCHI-682 007. 2. KUMBALANGHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUMBALANGHI, KOCHI-682 007, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE SECRETARY, KUMBALANGHI GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KUMBALANGHI, KOCHI-682 007. 4. THE TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVT. INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT., LOCAL SELF GOVT. DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW FOR R1 SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU FOR R1 SRI.K.L.JOSEPH FOR R2 & 3 SMT.P.SAREENA GEORGE FOR R2 & 3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPYOF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT BY THE PANCHAYATH. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 17.5.2004 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 20.5.2004 GIVEN TO THE PANCHAYATH BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1.7.2004 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 STRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 8.7.2004 ISSUED TO THE PANCHAYATH BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.9.2004 IN WPC 31025 OF 2004 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 22.9.2004 BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT, TRIBUNAL. EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION PREFERRED ;BY THE PETITIONER IN THE APPEAL ON 25.10.2004 EXT.P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10.12.2004 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO. 17/2004 EXT.P10 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYATH ON 10.2.2005 EXT.P11 TRUE COPY OF ;APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT TRIBUNAL ON 5.7.2005 EXT.P12 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE APPEAL. EXT.P13 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT FILED BY THE PANCHAYATH BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO. 17/2004 EXT.P14 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.9.2005 OF THE TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL NO. 380/2005 EXT.P15(a) TRUE COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE STAIRCASE EXT.P15(b) TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH OF A PIPE CONNECTING ON THE WALL OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P15(c) TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH OF LINE EXTENDED TO THE PUBLIC ROAD. EXT.P15(d) TRUE COPY OF PHOTOGRAPH OF CONCRETE SLAB OF THE RESPONDENT'S BUILDING. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 34031 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT Petitioner is challenging Ext.P14 order whereunder the Tribunal for Local Self-Government Institutions cancelled the order issued by the Panchayath directing the first respondent to demolish unauthorised construction which is an office building constructed by him and let out on lease to LIC of India. Petitioner is a neighbouring owner who supported the order of the Panchayath directing the first respondent to demolish the building. The Tribunal noticed that the construction was in violation of the Building Rules, but directed the Panchayath Secretary to consider regularisation as provided under the proviso to Section 235W(1) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act. The Tribunal interfered with the order of the Secretary of the Panchayath because it found that order was passed against first respondent, in the first place without hearing him and secondly without giving an opportunity to apply for regularisation of unauthorised construction. According to the first respondent, construction was completed before the introduction of 2 the Building Rules in the area, and therefore there is no violation of the Building Rules. Counsel for the first respondent has produced certain photographs which show relative position of the first respondent's building and that of the objector, namely, the petitioner. The first respondent's building is a two storied pucca modern structure constructed on the road side. It is not known why the petitioner did not raise objection during construction of the building by the first respondent. In any case, I do not find any justification to interfere with the Tribunal's order which has only directed the Panchayath to consider regularisation after giving opportunity to the petitioner also. Even though counsel for the first respondent submitted that the Panchayath considered the matter pursuant to Tribunal's order and both parties were heard, I do not think there is any need to consider subsequent developments, if any, after filing of the W.P. W.P. is therefore closed leaving freedom to the petitioner to raise objection when the Panchayath proposes to grant regularisation of the construction pursuant to Tribunal's order. (C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge kk 3