IMPORTANT POINTS:
" The builder is left with an option to change the occupancy of an existing building, by filing a suitable application in accordance with the constructions carried out.
" If a construction is carried out by the petitioners, in violation of Ext.P5 building permit, petitioners are entitled to submit a completion plan also showing the deviated constructions made and the Secretary of the Panchayat is at liberty to consider the completion plan, and identify whether the construction is carried out in accordance with the Rules, 2011, by virtue of the powers conferred under Rule 134 of Rules, 2011

The captioned writ petitions are materially connected in respect of construction of a building carried out by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.17259 of 2015. Therefore, I heard them together and propose to deliver this common judgment. The reliefs sought for by the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.17259 of 2015 are seeking to quash Ext.P9 prohibitory order of the 3rd respondent, Tahsildar, Aluva and Ext.P12 letter of the 2nd respondent, District Collector, Ernakulam, and for other consequential reliefs.

2. W.P.(C) No.6781 of 2016 is filed by the KKP Nagar Allottees' Association, who are allottees of plots by the Kerala State Housing Board, seeking direction to respondents 1 to 4 and 7 to ensure that no construction activity is done by respondents 5 and 6 therein, who are the petitioners in the earlier specified writ petition, without a building permit in plot No.49 of the KKP Nagar Housing Colony.

3. W.P.(C) No.13363 of 2016 is filed by the very same Allottees' Association, seeking direction to the 1st respondent, i.e., the Karumalloor Grama Panchayat to ensure that the illegal construction carried out by respondents 3 and 4 without building permit is demolished within a time frame to be fixed by this Court and for other consequential reliefs.

4. It is an admitted fact that, petitioners in W.P.(C) No.17259 of 2015 have submitted an application seeking building permit, which was considered by the Secretary of the above specified Grama Panchayat and issued Ext.P5 permit dated 06.03.2014, permitting the petitioners to construct the cellar portion as per the approved plan, and the permit was valid up to 05.03.2017. The approved plan is not produced along with the said writ petition. However, application for permit is produced as Ext.P3. From where, it is seen that petitioners have sought permission for construction of Basement/Cellar floor having an area of 180.01m2 and Ground and First floors with the same area, and thus altogether permit was sought for 540.03m2 (Incorrectly shown as 360.02m2) and the maximum height of the building is shown as 9.90 metres. However, the said application dated 22.01.2014 was considered and granted Ext.P5 permit only for the construction of Cellar floor.

5. According to the petitioners, the Cellar floor was constructed and since the application submitted by the petitioners for the construction of the Ground and the First floors was not considered, and appropriate permit was not granted within a period of thirty days, as is contemplated under Sec.236(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act, 1994'), petitioners are entitled to get deemed permit in accordance with law. Therefore, whatever constructions carried out by the petitioners cannot be said to be illegal or bad, and therefore, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in the other two writ petitions cannot be sustained under law and the petitioners are entitled to get the constructions already carried out regularized and also entitled to further constructions.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the other two writ petitions submitted that, all the constructions apart from the construction carried out as per Ext.P5, cannot be sustained under law, and the same are to be demolished. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.17259 of 2015 are attempting to construct a commercial building in the plots allotted by the Housing Board for construction of residential buildings alone, and therefore, in that regard also, the commercial construction carried out by the petitioners therein cannot be sustained under law.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Housing Board also supported the said arguments and submitted that Annexure-R7(a) Prospectus and conditions of allotment issued by the Housing Board are mandatory stipulations, which are bound to be followed by the allottees. Learned counsel has also invited my attention to Part-VIII of the said Prospectus. Clause