JUDGMENT

SHAJI P.CHALY, J.

The captioned appeal is preferred by the petitioner challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C).No.15101/2021 dated 02.09.2021, whereby, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that there is no illegality in Ext.P3 order dated 10.05.2021 passed by the Secretary of the Punnapra South Grama nd Panchayat - the 2 respondent refusing to regularize the unauthorized construction carried out by the appellant, since it is violative of Rule 26(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019.

Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows:

2. The appellant owns an extent of 3.56 Ares of property comprised in Sy.No.417/11-3 of Punnapra Village. According to the appellant, he constructed a small shop room in his building having a plinth area of 17 square meter for starting a provision store, however, without securing any permit from the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat. It is the further contention of the appellant that, it was after the construction of the building the appellant understood that the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, (for short “the Rules, 2019”) would apply to the constructions carried out by the appellant, and therefore, the appellant ought to have taken a permit before the construction. Anyhow, on realizing that Rule 92 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019, enables the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to regularize the construction if the construction is in accordance with the requirements of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and the Rules 2019, the appellant submitted Ext.P2 application, which was rejected by the Secretary as per Ext.P3 order stating that the construction cannot be regularized since it violates the mandatory requirements of Rule 26 (4) of the Rules, 2019. It is also stated in the said order that the open minimum yard measurement required under the said Rules is 3 meters but the open yard available in the plot in question is only 2.37 meters on an average and therefore, the Secretary is not vested with powers to regularize the construction. It was thus challenging the legality and correctness of the said order, the writ petition was filed.

3. Panchayat had filed a counter affidavit justifying the stand adopted by the Secretary that no regularization can be permitted in view of the violation of Rule 26 (4) of the Rules, 2019.

4. Learned Single Judge after assimilating the factual and legal circumstances, has found that the stand adopted by the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat is correct and therefore, the Secretary was not vested with powers to regularize the construction, however, the appellant is given the liberty to approach the Government for regularization of the unauthorized construction in accordance with the powers vested with the Government as per the rules constituted under Section 235 AB of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.

5. The paramount contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the requirement contained in Table 4 of Rule 26 (4) would not apply to the instant case, since when the building site on any side abuts a road, the rule to be followed is Rule 23 and Table 3 of Rules 2019. It is also contended that, as per Rule 23 Table 3, the appellant is liable to maintain a distance of only 2 meters from the road to the construction put up by the appellant. It is further contended that there is no logic in applying Rule 26, since the issue is guided by the provisions of the Rule 23 alone. The sum and substance of the contention advanced is that, on an analysis of Rule 2 (dt) which defines yard makes it clear that what is meant by yard is an open space at ground level between a building and the adjoining boundary lines of the plot unoccupied or where a structure is in existence. According to the appellant, a plot is defined under Rule 2 (cf) which is a parcel or piece of land enclosed by definite boundaries as described in the document of title. Therefo