IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 31ST MAY 2011 / 10TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 5921 of 2007(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DEEPU R.UNNITHAN, T.C.2/1155(1), MURINJAPALAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FROM DEEPANJALY, T.C.3/2174, LIC LANE-G, H.NO.L-155, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER K.MADHU, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR, VYSAKH,T.C.29/ 1656, PALKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-8. BY ADV. SRI.SABU GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. SACHITHANANTHAN,ABHIRAMAM, MANGANNOOR KONAM, PATTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 5291/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. P2. COPY OF THE ORDER OF R1 DTD.21.6.06. P3. COPY OF THE PETITION DTD.23.9.06. P4. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN W.P.(C).No. 25855/06. P5. COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. P6. COPY OF THE OBJECTION FILED BY R1. P7. COPY OF THE OBJECTION OF R2. P8. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DTD.19.12.06. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: R2A. COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BUILDING. B. COPY OF THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE BUILDING OVER WALL. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 5921 of 2007 ================== Dated this the 31st day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner challenges Ext.P2 order of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation and Ext.P8 order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions confirming Ext.P2 order. Those orders relate to certain constructions in the property belonging to the petitioner, which have been constructed in violation of the building rules. The petitioner earlier approached the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions in respect of the same subject matter and, by Ext.P1 order, the Tribunal, after finding that the construction is in violation of the building rules, permitted the petitioner to apply to the Corporation for regularisation of the illegal construction. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner filed an application for regularisation of the construction, in which, Ext.P2 order dated 21.6.2006 has been passed, wherein the petitioner was directed to demolish part of the building so as to leave one meter distance between the building and the boundary wall and then apply for regularisation of the balance. A legal battle ensued, which ultimately resulted in Ext.P8 order of the Tribunal upholding Ext.P2 order. The petitioner is challenging Exts.P2 and P8 orders in this writ petition. 2. The 2nd respondent-neighbour of the petitioner, who complained of violation of the building rules, has filed a counter affidavit explaining the violations and producing photographs of that 2 part of the building in question where the violation is complained of. The 2nd respondent stoutly opposes the prayers in the writ petition. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. It is not disputed before me now that the construction in question is in violation of the building rules. Even otherwise, when the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, which is the last fact finding authority under the statute, has entered a specific finding twice that the construction in question is in violation of the building rules, I do not think that I can interfere with that finding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Ext.P2 is actually a concession given to the petitioner so that the Corporation may regularise the construction, provided the petitioner avoids the complaint of the 2nd respondent by leaving one meter between the boundary wall of the property and the impugned construction. The petitioner has not chosen to comply with the same. The petitioner has been steadfastly maintaining that he will not demolish the building. When illegal construction is found, I do not think that the petitioner can postpone any longer the demolition of the building. In the above circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3