IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7501 of 2010(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ M.P.DAVIS, S/O.MEKKATTUKULAM PAILEE, AGD 56 YEARS MEKKATTUKULAM HOUSE, P.O.PAZHUVIL WEST TRICHUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.N.J.JOHNSON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. CHAZHOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY P.O.PAZHUVIL 680 564, THRISSUR DISTRICT 2. TRIBUNAL FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SMT.K.R.DEEPA SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.7501/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE AT ASSESSMENT REGISTER FOR THE YEAR 1993 TO 1998 MAINTAINED BY THE PANCHAYAT EXT.P2: TRUECOPY OF THE REQUEST DT. 14.1.2009 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE PANCHAYAT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.18.11.2009 PASSED BY PANCHAYAT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.4814/09. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL AND I.A.NO.245/10 FOR CONDONING DELAY OF 40 DAYS FILED BEFORE TRIBUNAL. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.245/10 DT.20TH FEBRUARY 2010 OF LSG TRIBUNAL. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF LSG TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF TAX RECEIPT DT.17.04.2008 ISSUED BY THE PANCHAYAT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 7501 OF 2010 (K) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner submits that he is the owner of building Nos.11/132 to 11/138 which were subsequently changed by the Panchayat. According to the petitioner, in order to avail of the electricity connection, he wants an ownership certificate in respect of the buildings. He made an application that was rejected by the Panchayat by Ext.P3 intimating that as per the assessment register, the building is a tiled building and that on inspection it was found that the building is a concrete building. According to the Panchayat, such alteration of the building was made by the petitioner in violation of Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and therefore his application cannot be considered. 2. Petitioner challenged Exgt.P3 before this court by filing WP (c).No.4814/2009 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment relegating the petitioner to pursue appellate remedy before the Tribunal. Accordingly the petitioner filed an appeal with the application to condone the delay. However, by the time the WPC.No.7501 /2010 :2 : appeal was filed the delay had exceeded the condonable limit and therefore the Tribunal rejected the delay petition and appeal itself was also rejected. Exts.P6 and P7 are the orders passed by the Tribunal. It is thereupon that this writ petition has been filed challenging Exts.P6 and P7 and also praying for a direction to the Panchayat to number the building and to issue ownership certificate as sought for. 3. Specific case of the Petitioner is that the building is in existence in 1993 and that he has not altered the building in any manner. According to the petitioner, the entry in the register of the Panchayat that the building is a tiled building is a mistake committed by the Panchayat and that for the said mistake the petitioner shall not be penalized. 4. Although notice was served to the respondents by Special Messenger, there is no appearance on their behalf. 5. If as stated by the petitioner, the building, as it is seen now, is in existence since 1993, that indicates that before the Panchayat Raj Act came into force the building has been in existence. It is also the specific case of the petitioner that no WPC.No.7501 /2010 :3 : subsequent alterations were made. If that be so, the mistake in the assessment register of the Panchayat, is no justification for refusing to assign building numbers to some of the rooms and to issue ownership certificate. In the light of the above, I dispose of this writ petition directing the Panchayat to number the building as sought for and also to issue ownership certificate to the petitioner. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/