Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 4650
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, J
JOHN CHANDY – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR – Respondent
WP(C) 16331/2021
P.S.BIJU, AMEER SALIM, SRI.AJIT JOY – SC, SMT. K.R.DEEPA - SPL. GP
The judgment affirms that regularization of unauthorized constructions must strictly adhere to relevant legal provisions and procedural requirements, with emphasis on established ownership and compliance with all regulatory norms.
Headnote:
Regulation - Land Use - Kerala Municipality Building (Regularisation of Unauthorized Construction) Rules, 2018 - The court reiterated the importance of compliance with regulatory conditions for the regularisation of unauthorized constructions and emphasized procedural integrity in land use matters.
Fact of the Case:
Three writ petitions were filed concerning unauthorized construction of a convention center by a petitioner, involving disputes over land titles and regulatory compliance under the Kerala Municipality Building Rules and the 2018 Regularisation Rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the regularisation of the construction was permissible under the 2018 Rules, provided the applicant complied with all necessary conditions, while it dismissed claims of encroachment by neighbors due to lack of evidence.
Issues: Whether the regularisation of unauthorized construction was lawful under the 2018 Rules and whether neighboring parties had the standing to challenge this regularisation without sufficient legal basis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of legal rights in filing petitions for regularization and that complaints related to encroachment on government land should be pursued through appropriate civil proceedings rather than writ petitions.
Final Decision: All three writ petitions were dismissed except for granting directions in the first writ petition for expeditious action on the employee representation concerning the convention center.
JUDGMENT
[WP(C) Nos.950/2023, 4986/2020, 16331/2021]
Typographical errors are corrected suo motu and judgment uploaded again.
This order of mine shall dispose of three writ petitions.
W.P.(C).No.950/2023 titled as Arakkanattil Oommen Iype v. State of Kerala and Another (hereinafter called first writ petition), a senior citizen, an NRI, has sought the indulgence of this Court by seeking following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or directions, directing the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P1 representation and take appropriate action in accordance with law expeditiously and within a time fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
ii) Issue such other order or direction , as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, in the interest of justice.”
2. Writ petition bearing No.16331 of 2021 titled as John Chandy and Another v. District Collector, Kottayam and Others (hereinafter called second writ petition) claiming following reliefs:
“a) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents 1, 3, 4 & 5 to permit the Petitioner to participate in the process of identification of government puramboke land-as initiated through Exhibit P4 notice by giving 7 days advance notice with liberty to engage independent surveyors and by providing/sharing the copy of such documents relied upon by the Respondents to conduct the survey.
b) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the Respondents 1, 3, 4 & 5 to share all the documents including survey map or such other records relied on by them to identify government puramboke as initiated through Exhibit P4 notice to the Petitioners.
c) To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records of the 4th Respondent or such other authority pursuant to the measurement done on 30.07.2021 based on Exhibit P4 notice and to quash the same.
d) To grant such other relief's that may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the circumstance of the case and also to allow the Petitioners to realize the cost of the proceedings from Respondents.”
3. Writ petition bearing No.4986 of 2020 titled as Rajamma Joseph v. State of Kerala and Others (hereinafter called third writ petition) wherein Ext.P28 order dated
17.02.2020 of the Additional Chief Secretary dismissing the review petition, filed against the order of regularization of construction, has been assailed. The question of law and facts in these writ petitions are common, therefore, are decided together.
4. Petitioner in the first case, 7th respondent in the second case and 9th respondent in the third case are the same person, hereinafter represented by name “Shri.Iype”. Before adverting to the contentions of the learned counsel representing the parties, it would be necessary to give chronological dates of events.
(a) On 02.02.2010, vide sale deed of even date, Shri.Iype purchased 1.22 hectors of property in Re-survey No.13 Block No.78 of Muttambalam Village along with the building bearing door Nos.11/688 and 11/689 of Municipality, Kottayam on a built- up area of 560 square meters, allegedly adjacent to the property owned by the petitioner in the third writ petition, hereinafter referred to as “Smt.Rajamma”.
(b) Buildings according to Shri.Iype, was about 65 years and above old and used for godowns for storing plywood sheets. It was decided to convert the building as a convention centre by retaining building Nos.XI/688 and XI/689. The old buildings were modified and strengthened by taking into consideration the requirements of Rule 55 of Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999.
(c) An application dated 24.02.2016 was submitted to the competent authority to permit the use of building as a convention centre. However, prior to that, there was a provisional order to stop the construction.
(d) On 04.04.2016, Smt.Rajamma filed an application for lay out, but the construction went on. On the basis of
