SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 45705

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J
M M MANOJ – Appellant
Versus
VELLOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 31139/2013



Building compliance with local regulations must be established prior to property assessment and numbering.

Headnote:

Construction - Petitioners' Building - Kerala Panchayat Building Rules 2011 - Section 8 - Summary: The court addressed compliance with local building regulations, ruling that unresolved legal appeals affect property tax assessments and building numbering, directing the review of a regularization application.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners constructed a building under a valid permit but faced allegations of encroachment and violations of local building rules after construction completion, compelling them to seek legal redress.

Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to have their building assessed for numbering despite ongoing legal proceedings regarding alleged compliance violations.

Ratio Decidendi: Legal compliance and pending appeals directly affect property rights; building numbering can only occur after resolution of compliance issues per local laws.

Final Decision: The relief sought by the petitioners was denied; they must pursue their appeal and regularization application.

JUDGMENT

The petitioners have constructed a building pursuant to Exhibit P1 building permit that was issued to them. The case of the petitioners is that, the construction has been made in conformity with the building permit as well as the approved plan. According to the petitioners, notices were issued to them, after the building construction was complete, alleging that they had made encroachments on 'poramboke' land. Though, they had expressed their readiness to have the property measured out, for the purpose of ascertaining whether there are violations, no action was taken in the said regard. Therefore, the petitioners had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.31240/12. The said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the property to be measured with the assistance of the Tahsildar. If no orders were passed within a period of two weeks of the date of the said judgment, the petitioners were permitted to proceed with their construction. However, the respondent issued an order WPC.No.31139/13 -2-

prohibiting the construction. Therefore, the petitioners again approached this Court by filing W.P(C)No.16033/13. The said Writ Petition was disposed of directing the petitioners to approach the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions for appropriate reliefs. Accordingly, Appeal No.608/2013 is filed. The order appealed against has been stayed by Exhibit P9. The petitioners have on the strength of the interim order of stay, carried on their construction and completed the same. Though, they have submitted Exhibit P11 application for fixation of property tax/building tax and to number the building, no action has been taken on the said application, it is complained. Therefore, they seek the issue of appropriate directions for numbering the building.

2. Heard Sri P.P.Jacob, who appears for the petitioners as well as Sri Pradeep Kumar, who appears for the Panchayat.

3. The allegation in Exhibit P8 is that though the petitioners had been issued with a building permit Exhibit P1, the construction that has been put up is not in accordance with the permit and the approved plan. It is also alleged that the petitioners' construction violates the provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules ,2011. A basement that has been constructed is alleged to be WPC.No.31139/13 -3-

not as permitted by Exhibit P1. The petitioners have challenged Exhibit P8 in appeal before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions, Thiruvananthapuram. As per Exhibit P9 interim order, the said order has been stayed. The matter remains at the said stage.

4. It is true that the petitioners have,taking advantage of the interim order of stay, completed their construction. However, they can aspire to get their building numbered only if they succeed in the appeal they have filed before the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions. Since Exhibit P8 is remaining stayed, they are not entitled to claim that their building is liable to be numbered and assessed to tax as though the same has been constructed in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. The above being the position, I am not satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. They would have to work out their remedy before the Tribunal. If they succeed, it shall be open to them to seek for the numbering of their building.

The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have submitted Exhibit P13 application for regularisation of their construction. They complain that the application is not being WPC.No.31139/13 -4-

considered. I notice that Exhibit P13 is dated 4.12.2013. Therefore, I am not satisfied that there has been any delay in considering the same. However, it is only appropriate that the said application is considered by the respondent and necessary orders passed thereon, without delay, if necessary after conducting an inspection of the construction to ascertain whether the same is one that could be regularised. Therefore, while declining relief t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top