Building permits and licenses for operational units must be evaluated based on contemporary regulations, and allegations of unauthorized construction require substantial evidence to alter compliance status.

JUDGMENT :

Amit Rawal, J.

Present intracourt appeal is directed against the judgment of the Single Bench, whereby the order of the Tribunal dated 21.08.2020, Ext.P33, dismissing the revision petition of the 1st respondent/petitioner has been set aside and the writ petition has been allowed.

2. Succinctly, the facts in brief are as herein below:

In the year 1993, one Najeeb started a metal crusher unit in Sy.No.439/1 of Kizhakkambalam Village of Kizhakkambalam Gram Panchayat. In 1998, Sunny Varghese purchased the crusher unit and expanded it by making additional constructions. It is pertinent to mention here at that time, the Kerala Building Rules were not made applicable in the aforementioned Panchayath and the construction was made without the building permit. The Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1990 was made applicable to Gram Panchayath areas only on 06.06.2007. On 18.09.2007, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board granted the consent to operate the unit, which was again reiterated on 17.12.2007.

3. In 2008, the 8th respondent, Sunny Varghese, made additional construction, including heightening of the walls to the roof level in obedience of directions in Annexure A1 and A2. It is pertinent to mention here that Annexure A1 and A2 were given by the Kerala State Pollution Control Board noticing the fact that there were no building permits.

4. The problem occurred only in 2008 when Sunny Varghese, on 28.05.2008, submitted Ext.P2 application for obtaining permit for construction of a machine room having a plinth area of 36 sq.mt. It is pertinent to mention here that the plinth area where the metal crusher unit is being run is 344.30 sq.mt. Ext.P3 site plan was also submitted along with Ext.P2. The 5^th respondent, Secretary, Panchayath, forwarded the application for building permit for machine room and the site plan to the Chief Town Planner vide letter dated 28.05.2008. Since the side walls was not constructed to prevent the pollution to spread, 8^th respondent constructed the same realizing that no permission has been sought and an application for regularization of the building was submitted along with building plan,Ext.P7.

5. The Kerala Municipality Building Rules were amended and as per notification dated 16.02.2009, stone crushers were included in Group I(Hazardous Building) of Rule 30 of Kerala Muncipality Building Rules. Similarly, Rule 59(4) of the KMBR , 1999 also envisages that the minimum clear width of access to a building and plot as well as the width of the street giving access to the plot from the main street shall be 7 metres.

6. On 15.10.2010, the Chief Town Planner vide, Ext.P9, approved the layout plan to construct machine room with a condition to provide minimum access width of 7 metres (emphasis supplied to the condition No.3). Vide Ext P10, regularization order was issued by the Panchayath in respect of the building bearing number No.X/717 whereby Rs.10,329/- was deposited as compounding fees by the erstwhile owner of the land, i.e., Sunny Varghese.

7. On 16.06.2012, the appellant/7^th respondent purchased the crusher unit from the 8^th respondent vide a sale deed. On 24.04.2013, consent was issued by the Pollution Control Board in favor of the appellant/7^th respondent. Vide Ext.P21 dated 20.03.2015, the Chief Town Planner cancelled the order, Ext.P9 dated 15.10.2010 which approved the layout of the machine room with a condition to provide minimum width of 7 metres, on the ground that the petitioner had not provided the access of 7 meters. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant/respondent N