JUDGMENT

SHAJI P.CHALY,J.

This appeal is preferred by the respondent in W.P.(C) No.16275 of 2021 challenging the Judgment dated 30th September, 2021, whereby the writ petition was allowed, and accordingly Exhibit P2 order passed by the appellant dated 3.8.2021 declining to grant transfer of ownership in the records of the appellant Panchayat in respect of a building constructed by the writ petitioner/respondent was set aside; and further directed the appellant to pass appropriate orders by making appropriate change in the property tax register by showing the name of the writ petitioner as the owner of the building in question.

2. At the outset it is placed on record that the appellant in spite of service of notice did not appear before the writ court and the judgment was pronounced in absentia of the appellant. Thereupon, the appellant has preferred R.P.No.803 of 2021, which was also dismissed as per an order dated 22nd November, 2021 holding that there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment. It is thus challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and the order in the review petition, this appeal is preferred.

3. Basic facts for the disposal of the writ appeal are as follows; according to the writ petitioner, petitioner purchased a land with two buildings thereon having numbers XII/342 & XII/343 within the limits of the appellant Grama Panchayat on 11.8.2020. Thereafter, an application was filed before the Secretary of the appellant Grama Panchayat for changing the ownership of the buildings in the property tax register, which was rejected as per Exhibit P2 impugned order assigning the reason that the building is not in existence. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that all the buildings were demolished after obtaining the interim order in W.P.(C) No.17960/2010, which was pending consideration before this Court. Therefore, according to the writ petitioner, the rejection of application for changing the name in the property tax register is an arbitrary action, which causes serious prejudice to the writ petitioner to enjoy the property.

4. The Grama Panchayat has filed the appeal basically contending that even though notice is served on the Panchayat, the Panchayat could not enter appearance since the Panchayat had to be kept closed on several days due to detection of COVID -19 on the officials and staff of the Panchayat. Therefore, even though notice was received on 6.9.2021, the file was misplaced especially due to the fact that the entire office was in the process of changing to online. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by setting aside impugned Exhibit P2 order directing the Panchayat to make appropriate changes in the property tax register, without understanding the true facts. Even though a review petition was filed, that was also dismissed stating that there are no reasons to review the judgment. That apart it is pointed out that the building was already demolished by the predecessor-in-title of the property and there is no provision in the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 and the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules in force, to provide any concession for the construction of any building towards the landward side of a water body in a Panchayath area since the entire area comes under CRZ – III. Therefore, according to the appellant, the Registry cannot be transferred in favour of the writ petitioner.

5. We have heard Smt.Vahida Babu the learned counsel for appellant Panchayath, Sri.P.V.Sahasranamam for the respondent/writ petitioner and perused the pleadings and materials on record.

6. It is an admitted fact that the buildings and the property measuring 47.04 cents of Kottuvally Village, Paravur Taluk, Ernakulam District is purchased by the writ petitioner. Apparently, the issue in respect of the buildings coming within the provisions of CRZ Regulation, is a subject matter in W.P.(C) No.17960/2020, which is pending consideration before this Court.