Compliance with building permits and regulations, the importance of hearing all parties involved, and the significance of open spaces and structural stability as per the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999.

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1.The petitioner is aggrieved with the construction carried on by the 4th respondent, in the property lying to the north of the petitioner's residential property. The petitioner is residing, with her family, in 4.630 cents of property comprised in Survey No.294/3 of Ernakulam Village in Ward No. 68 of Cochin Corporation. To the immediate north lies 6.820 cents of property in the very same survey number belonging to the 4th respondent, wherein, the objectionable construction is going on. The petitioner was aggrieved with the land being filled up for the construction of an apartment complex which, the petitioner apprehended, would result in flooding up of the petitioner's property. On the construction being commenced based on building permit at Exts.P2 and P3, the petitioner also alleged certain violations on the western side wherein, the projection of the building was up to 80 cms while the permissible projection could only be of 60cms. The petitioner hence filed Exts.P4 and P5 complaints before the Corporation.

2. The Corporation based on the complaint received, issued Ext.P6 notice of enquiry. However, since nothing transpired the petitioner approached this Court with the above writ petition. There was an order granted on 22.01.2015; wherein there was a direction to ensure that the construction of the 4th respondent is in accordance with Ext.P2 permit and Ext.P3 approved plan.

3. While the writ petition was pending, the 4th respondent approached this Court with an additional counter affidavit dated 24.06.2008 wherein, Exts.R4(a) and R4(b) were produced. Ext.R4 (a) was a receipt for a revised plan, received by the Corporation from the 4th respondent. Ext.R4(b) was the communication addressed by the Corporation to the 4th respondent pointing out the pendency of the writ petition and the consequent inability to consider such revised plan. In that circumstances, the 4th respondent sought for consideration of the revised plan, which was directed as per order dated 22.09.2015; wherein there was a specific direction to hear the petitioner. The petitioner is said to have been heard on the question of the revised plan. Admittedly, revised plan was to construct two additional floors. Ext.P2 building permit contemplated a building of three stories (ground + two). The revised plan as submitted by Ext.R4(a), contemplated construction of the 3rd and 4th floors. The 4th respondent was informed that there could not be two floors above the proposed building, as per the revised plan, for reason of lack of parking area; to be provided under Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (KMBR). The 4th respondent then submitted a further revised plan seeking additional construction of one floor, ie., the 3rd floor on the building already permitted as per Ext.P2. The 4th respondent did not inform this Court about such action having been taken. The Corporation too issued Exhibit P8 building permit; without notice issued to the petitioner.

4. The Corporation thus, without hearing the petitioner on the construction of the 3rd floor issued Ext.P9 permit dated 15.12.2015, which is also challenged as per an amendment application filed. Since no counter has been filed, the amendment petition stands allowed and the writ petition being ripe for hearing, there is no requirement to direct the petitioner to file an amended writ petition; as the 4th respondent never raised any dispute against the amendment sought.

5. With respect to the water logging, the learned Counsel, on behalf of the 4th respondent, undertakes that there would be a drain provided and the wall on the boundary of the petitioner's property would be strengthened to ensure that no damage is caused to the petitioner's property. The projection on the western side beyond 60 cms is also undertaken to be demolished by the 4th respondent. In such circumstances, the above grounds do not survive for any consideration and it is directed that the 4th respondent comply with the under