1. The petitioner has constructed a commercial building in an extent of 91 sq.meters of land, after obtaining a valid building permit. But when the petitioner approached the Panchayath for numbering the building, on the basis of certain complaints received by the Secretary of the Panchayath, an enquiry was conducted. Initially, the complaint was that the petitioner has trespassed into puramboke land. That was verified through the Taluk Surveyor and it was found that the petitioner has not trespassed into any puramboke land. Thereafter, the Panchayath issued another notice to the petitioner complaining that he does not have three meters frontage from the existing road and hence the construction is unauthorised. On that premise, Ext.P11 notice has been issued to the petitioner stating that there is violation of Section 220(b) of the Kerala Panchayath Raj Act (hereinafter referred as the Act) and therefore the portion abutting three meters from the road portion has to be demolished for giving number to the building. The petitioner submitted a reply Ext.P12 stating that for small plots no building permit is required and therefore the Panchayath should not insist for such a requirement.

2. The petitioner has two fold contentions. One is that the road in front of the property of the petitioner is a Panchayath road and has not been notified and therefore Section 220 (b) has no application. The second contention is based on the Kerala Panchayath Building Rules 2011 (hereinafter referred as the Rules). It is contended that no building permit is required as per the Rules in terms of Rule 10 of the sub Rules.

3. Counter affidavit is filed by the Panchayath controverting the contentions urged by the petitioner. According to them, the road in front of the petitioner's property is a major district road as evident from Ext.R5(b), a letter issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD Road Sub Division, Mallappally. Therefore, strict adherence to Section 220(b) was required. It is also stated that the petitioner initially approached the Panchayath for a building permit and since the site plan showed that he had not left 3 meters distance from the road, he was asked to submit a revised plan. He resubmitted a revised plan showing 3 metres open area from the road, and the permit was issued by the Panchayath. The site plan Ext.R5(a) shows that the petitioner had left a distance of 3 meters from the road to front of the building.

4. The contention of the respondent is that at present the distance from the road is only 2.3 meters as evident from the Taluk Surveyor's report Ext.P10.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the Panchayath. It is contended that as far as Section 220(b) is concerned, even if it is a major district road it requires a notification as provided under Section 220(b). I do not think so. Section 220(b) reads as under:

"Construct any building or structure other than a compound wall in any land abutting any National Highway, State High way, District roads or any other roads notified by the Village Panchayath within a distance of three metres from the boundary of his land abutting the road.

Provided that, the said limit of three metres shall not be applicable for the construction of first floor or second floor or both upon a building, existing on the date of coming into force of this Act.

Provided further that, any path, bridge or similar construction used solely for entering into any building or weather shade or sun-shade forming part of the building may, subject to the rules regarding construction of building, be constructed within the said three metres limit."

6. From the above provision it is clear that when a person intends to construct a building or structure in any land abutting any National Highway, State Highway, District road or any road notified by the Village Panchayath a distance of three metres from the boundary of the land has to be maintained. In respec