2024 Supreme(Ker) 318
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
V.M. Abdul Shukoor, S/o. V.M. Moosa & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Department of Local Self Government, Government Secretariat & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) Nos. 23754, 5712 of 2023
Decided On : 11-04-2024
For the Petitioner: Sri. Ajwin P. Lalson, Sri. Babu Karukapadath, Smt. M.A. Vaheeda Babu, Sri. P.U. Vinod Kumar, Smt. Arya Raghunath, Sri. T.M. Muhammed Musthaq, Smt. Vaisakhi V., Sri. Karukapadath Wazim Babu, Smt. Aysha E.M., Smt. Shifana Kaise, Smt. P. Lakshmi.
For the Respondent: Smt. Preetha K.K., Government Pleader, Smt. Deepa K.R., Spl. Government Pleader, LSGD, Sri. D.G. Vipin, Sri. K.P. Sudheer, Smt. Sherry M.V., Sri. P.K. Suresh Kumar (SR.), Sri. George G. Poothicote, Smt. Smitha S., Sri. K. Janardhana Shenoy, SC, Kochi Municipal Corporation, Sri. Rishikesh Shenoy M., Sri. Anil Xavier (SR.), Smt. Athira Lekshmi J.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with mandatory building rules and the need for exercising discretion in a reasonable and rational manner.
Headnote:
Construction - Building Permits - Kerala Building Rules, 1984, Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 - Rule 5 of KBR - Rule 15A proviso of KMBR 1999 - Ext.P11, Ext.P14, Ext.P15
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute over the construction of a building at Broadway, Kochi. The petitioners challenge the legality of building permits issued for additional floors and an order of exemption from various mandatory provisions of the Kerala Building Rules, 1984.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the exemption granted under Rule 5 of KBR and the decision of the Committee under Rule 15A proviso of KMBR 1999 were legally unsustainable. The permit issued pursuant to the Special Committee's decision was also deemed invalid. The delay in challenging the order of exemption was not fatal.
Issues: (i) Legality of exemption granted under Rule 5 of KBR (ii) Validity of the decision of the Committee under Rule 15A proviso of KMBR 1999 (iii) Validity of the permit issued pursuant to the Special Committee's decision (iv) Impact of delay in challenging the order of exemption
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the exemption and permit were granted in violation of mandatory provisions, and the delay in challenging the order of exemption was not sufficient to refuse the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: Both writ petitions were allowed, setting aside the orders of exemption, the decision of the Special Committee, and the building permits.
Construction of buildings is regulated to strike a balance between the built and the non-built environment. Planned constructions are essential to ensure sustainable growth and development of the country. However, human greed and utter disregard for law have led to rampant illegal constructions. Official nexus for such reprehensible activities has acted as a bridge for aiding the violators. Illegalities often turn into fait accompli and escape the clutches of law. Nevertheless, courts cannot turn a blind eye when such instances are brought to its notice.
2. The above prelude indicates the nature of disputes raised in these two writ petitions. Both writ petitions relate to the construction of a building at Broadway – a commercial hotspot in Kochi. The first writ petition challenged the building permits issued for the construction of additional floors to an existing building, while the second writ petition was filed subsequently after additional information was obtained. Since the issues are connected, both writ petitions are disposed of together.
3. Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.5712 of 2023 challenge a building permit dated 25-05-2022 (Ext.P12) issued to respondents 9 to 15 and also the building permit dated 26-07-2004 (Ext.P14). Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.23754 of 2023 challenge an order of exemption issued by the Government on 17-12-2002 (Ext.P11), allegedly granting exemption from various mandatory provisions of the Kerala Building Rules, 1984 (for short KBR), the decision dated 12-04-2018 (Ext.P14) of the Special Committee constituted under Rule 15A of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 (for short KMBR 1999) and the consequential building permit dated 25-05-2022 (Ext.P15). The orders are challenged as being issued illegally, on extraneous and irrelevant considerations and that too with malafides.
4. Petitioners are the owners of different shop rooms in a building called “Koluthara Broadway Bazar.” The building is constructed on a total land area of about 51.373 cents in the centre of Kochi city. The original owners of the land were Sebastian Varghese and Grace Antony, who obtained a building permit on 24-11-1998 to construct three floors - the basement, the ground floor, and the first floor.
5. Petitioners had purchased undivided shares in the land along with the right to construct the rooms forming part of the larger three-storied building and thus became co-owners of the property. In the meantime, all the rooms of the shopping complex were constructed and completed in accordance with the building permit and the shop rooms were even assessed to property tax after allotting building numbers. Petitioners allege that though the construction of the outer structure was complete, a portion of the common facilities and amenities offered by the original owners had not been completed. In the meantime, since the original owners had incurred substantial liability with the Federal Bank, petitioners and others pooled money and cleared the liability on the assurance that two more floors would be constructed over the three-storied building as consideration for the payment made by them. Subsequently, the additional second and third floors were constructed. However, it was found that the additional constructions were not in terms of the approved plan since the building did not have clearance from the Fire Department, the required parking facilities or even the provision for a lift, apart from other required statutory clearances. The Corporation thus refused to issue the Occupancy Certificate for the additional two floors.
6. Petitioners alleged that the existing three floors have valid occupancy while the additional two floors have no such certificate. They allege that the initial three floors were constructed between the years 1998 and 2000, and any further construction now would be structurally unsafe and dangerous to its occupants, especially since there are cracks in every floor of the building.
7. While so, recently, petitioners real