1. W.P.(C)Nos.19676/2014 and 19968/2014 are filed by Aruvikkara Grama Panchayat against Exhibit P1 common order passed by the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram; W.P.(C)No.821/2015 is filed by the respondent in the other two writ petitions seeking enforcement of Exhibit P1 order. Since all the parties are common in the three writ petitions, with an identical issue to be adjudicated upon, this Court proposes to dispose of the three writ petitions through a common judgment. For ease of reference and expression, the facts as narrated and exhibits as displayed in W.P.(C)No.19676/2014 have been taken as the basis.

2. The facts in brief are that the respondent initially obtained Exhibit R1(c) building permit on 17.08.2012. Subsequently, the petitioner Grama Panchayat issued Exhibit R1(e) show cause notice to the respondent, ostensibly under Rule 18 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Building Rules, 2011, requiring him to explain why the building permit granted in Exhibit R1(c) should not be cancelled. In the face of the explanation submitted by the respondent, when the petitioner Grama Panchayat passed Exhibit R1(g) order, the respondent, aggrieved thereby, filed statutory Appeal No.226/2013 before the learned Tribunal, which in turn disposed of the said appeal through Exhibit P2 order directing the petitioner to take action after conducting site inspection.

3. In compliance with Exhibit P2 order of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner is said to have obtained Exhibit P3 report from the Village Officer, apart from physically inspecting the property in question — the physical inspection resulting in Exhibit P4 report. Subsequently, the petitioner issued Exhibit P5 show cause notice. Instead of replying, the respondent filed Appeal No.477/2013 challenging Exhibit P5 show cause notice. The record reveals that after obtaining Exhibit P7 interim order, the respondent went ahead and completed the construction. Evidently while the appeal was pending, the respondent, on completion of the building, applied for an Occupancy Certificate, which was rejected by the petitioner through Exhibit P9.

4. The respondent once again approached the learned Tribunal laying challenge against Exhibit P9 in Appeal No.940/2013. On a comprehensive adjudication of the issue, the learned Tribunal eventually passed Exhibit P1 common order setting aside Exhibit P5 show cause notice, with a consequential direction to the petitioner to issue Occupancy Certificate. Under those circumstances, the petitioner Grama Panchayat has filed W.P.(C)Nos.2014 and 19968/2014 assailing Exhibit P1 Common Order; on the other hand, the respondent filed W.P.(C) No.821/2015 seeking enforcement of the same Common Order.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that in the light of Exhibit P2 order passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner Grama Panchayat followed the due process before issuing Exhibit P5 show cause notice. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that only after obtaining the report in Exhibit P3 from the Village Officer and only after subjecting the land in question to physical inspection, the petitioner issued Exhibit P5 show cause notice.

6. The learned counsel has laid frontal thrust on the singular aspect that Exhibit P5 being a show cause notice, the learned Tribunal ought not to have entertained Appeal No.477/2013. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has drawn my attention to Rule 151 of the Building Rules with specific emphasis on sub-rules (vi) and (vii). According to the learned counsel, on physical verification, the petitioner has found that the property was filled up very recently, and that the said finding belies the contention of the respondent that the land stood converted long prior to the enforcement of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. He has also submitted that, apart from the issue of the nature of the land, what weigh