JUDGMENT

Dated this the 18th day of July, 2022 The petitioner states that his father was granted a Building Permit for construction of an Apartment Complex. The Building Permit was granted on 31.07.2010. The Building Permit was renewed from time to time.

2. After the construction, certain variations in the construction were noted by the respondents and it was regularised on payment of `3,90,619/- to the Panchayat. However, the 2nd respondent is now insisting that the petitioner should comply with the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules as amended in 2011 and 2014. In the circumstances, the petitioner seeks to direct the respondents to allot Door number and to grant Occupancy Certificate to the petitioner for the building constructed by him on the basis of Ext.P1 Building Permit, taking into account Ext.P13 NOC issued by the Fire and Rescue Department.

3. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondents and controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioner. The Standing Counsel pointed out that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier filing W.P.(C) No.390/2017. In the interim order dated 05.12.2017, this Court directed the Panchayat to renew the Building Permit granted to the petitioner, making it, however, clear that the order will not prejudice the right of the Panchayat to contend that the construction put up by the petitioner pursuant to the Building Permit is an unauthorised one.

4. Standing Counsel, relying on Ext.P12 communication, submitted that the Original Building Plan was issued to the father of the petitioner in the year 2010. The petitioner has not cared to submit an application for transfer of the Building Permit in petitioner’s name. Furthermore, as per the Revised Permit issued on 19.12.2017 to the petitioner, the Building is a high rated building. Therefore, necessary open space and approach road satisfying the requirements of Fire and Safety Department have to be maintained. In the petitioner’s case, the open space is less than the statutory requirement. The Standing Counsel further pointed out that open space available in the petitioner’s building is less and the set back is also not as per the requirements. Rear Yard has been completely covered. Unless the petitioner cures the said deficiencies, the application for Occupancy Certificate cannot be processed.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

6. The building was constructed on the basis of a Building Permit issued on 31.07.2010. Ext.P1 is the Building Permit. Subsequently, the duration of the Building Permit was renewed by the Panchayat as per Exts.P2 and P3. The petitioner completed the building as per the Approved Building Permit and Plan.

7. When the petitioner submitted application for Occupancy Certificate and numbering of the building, the respondents have made certain objections as contained in Ext.P12 communication. Going through Ext.P12, it is seen that the first objection raised by the respondents is that the Building Permit is seen issued to the petitioner’s father, whereas the Completion Plan has been submitted by the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the said defect or drawback is one which can be cured by the petitioner making appropriate application supported by all necessary documents.

8. The second objection is as regards the approach road and set back area. This Court finds that the said requirement is insisted by the Panchayat authorities in view of the subsequent amendments to the Building Rules. The petitioner’s Original Building Permit is of the year 2010. When the petitioner has completed the building as per the stipulations in the said Building Permit, the respondents cannot insist that subsequent changes in the Building Rules should be complied with by the petitioner.

9. Furthermore, it is to be noted that the Fire and Rescue Services Authorities have already issued a Fire NOC to the petitioner,