IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN TUESDAY, THE 8^TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 17TH PHALGUNA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 838 OF 2022 PETITIONER:

PRASITHA, AGED 43 YEARS W/O. KAILASAN, KATTUPARAMBIL HOUSE, LOKAMALESHWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR P.O, THRISSUR DT., THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 664.

BY ADV P.SHEEBA RESPONDENTS:

1 KODUNGALOOR MUNICIPALITY, THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KODUNGALLUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 664.

2 THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR , KODUNGALLUR TALUK, KODUNGALLUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 664.

3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER, LOKAMALESHWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN 680 664.

SRI.K.A.NOUSHAD SMT.VINITHA B., SR.GP THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 8^th day of March, 2022 This writ petition is filed seeking the following prayers:

“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ or order directing the first respondent to consider Exhibit P1 application submitted by the petitioner for regularization of construction and take a final decision in the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P5, P6, P6(a), P7 and P8 issued by the respondents.

(iii) Direct the respondents No.2 and 3 not to enforce Exhibit P7 and P8 notices till a decision is taken by the first respondent on Exhibit P1 application of the petitioner. (iv) Declare that the first respondent is not entitled to demand property tax on the house building and three shop rooms in the ground floor treating it as unauthorized construction.

(v) Stay all further proceedings pursuant to Exhibit P7 and P8 notices issued by the second respondent till a final decision is taken by the first respondent on Exhibit P1 application submitted by the petitioner.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel appearing for the Municipality as well as the learned Government Pleader.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has submitted Ext.P1 application for regularization of the construction made in her property. However, without considering the same, notices have been issued requiring the petitioner to pay huge amounts as arrears of property tax. It is submitted that coercive proceedings have also been taken against the petitioner.

4. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Municipality submits that pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner as Ext.P1, Ext.P3 notice had been issued requiring the petitioner to produce necessary details with regard to the property including a survey sketch, location sketch, site map etc.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has approached the Taluk Surveyor for a survey sketch, but there is some delay in getting the same.

6. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that it is for the petitioner to produce the documents which have been sought for by the Municipality for a proper consideration of Ext.P1 application submitted by her. There will, accordingly, be a direction that in case the petitioner obtains the necessary documents and produces the same before the Municipality within a period of six weeks from today, the Municipality shall take up the application, consider and pass orders on the same, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and considering her contentions also. Appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of one month thereafter. Till such time, further coercive proceedings against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance.

This writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE NP APPENDIX OF WP(C) 838/2022 PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 13.5.2014 AND

27.05.2014 Exh